A new approach based on graph matching and evolutionary approach for sport scheduling problem
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Traveling Tournament Problem (TTP) is concerned with finding a double round-robin tournament schedule that minimizes the total distances traveled by the teams. It has attracted significant interest recently since a favorable TTP schedule can result in significant savings for the league. This paper proposes an original evolutionary algorithm for TTP. We first propose a quick and effective constructive algorithm to construct a Double Round Robin Tournament (DRRT) schedule with low travel cost. We then describe an enhanced genetic algorithm with a new crossover operator to improve the travel cost of the generated schedules. A new heuristic for ordering efficiently the scheduled rounds is also proposed. The latter leads to significant enhancement in the quality of the schedules. The overall method is evaluated on publicly available standard benchmarks and compared with other techniques for TTP and UTTP (Unconstrained Traveling Tournament Problem). The computational experiment shows that the proposed approach could build very good solutions comparable to other state-of-the-art approaches or better than the current best solutions on UTTP. Further, our method provides new valuable solutions to some unsolved UTTP instances and outperforms prior methods for all US National League (NL) instances.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".