Constraint Solving Approaches to the Business-to-Business Meeting Scheduling Problem
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Business-to-Business Meeting Scheduling problem consists of scheduling a set of meetings between given pairs of participants to an event, while taking into account participants’ availability and accommodation capacity. A crucial aspect of this problem is that breaks in participants’ schedules should be avoided as much as possible. It constitutes a challenging combinatorial problem that needs to be solved for many real world brokerage events. In this paper we present a comparative study of Constraint Programming (CP), MixedInteger Programming (MIP) and Maximum Satisfiability (MaxSAT) approaches to this problem. The CP approach relies on using global constraints and has been implemented in MiniZinc to be able to compare CP, Lazy Clause Generation and MIP as solving technologies in this setting. We also present a pure MIP encoding. Finally, an alternative viewpoint is considered under MaxSAT, showing best performance when considering some implied constraints. Experiments conducted on real world instances, as well as on crafted ones, show that the MaxSAT approach is the one with the best performance for this problem, exhibiting better solving times, sometimes even orders of magnitude smaller than CP and MIP.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".