Learning Scheduling Models from Event Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A significant challenge in declarative approaches to scheduling is the creation of a model: the set of resources and their capacities and the types of activities and their temporal and resource requirements. In practice, such models are developed manually by skilled consultants and used repeatedly to solve different problem instances. For example, in a factory, the model may be used each day to schedule the current customer orders. In this work, we aim to automate the creation of such models by learning them from event data. We introduce a novel methodology that combines process mining, timed Petri nets (TPNs), and constraint programming (CP). The approach learns a sub-class of TPN from event logs of executions of past schedules and maps the TPN to a broad class of scheduling problems. We show how any problem of the scheduling class can be converted to a CP model. With new instance data (e.g., the day’s orders), the CP model can then be solved by an off-the-shelf solver. Our approach provides an end-to-end solution, going from event logs to model-based optimal schedules. To demonstrate the value of the methodology we conduct experiments in which we learn and solve scheduling models from two types of data: logs generated from job-shop scheduling benchmarks and real-world event logs from an outpatient hospital.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".