[rules-users] Re: [drools-solver] help for defining my drools model / moves

I call this problem a "score trap". The problem is that your moves are to fine grained relatively to the rewarding aspect of the score function. Here are some options: 1) You could introduce an extra bigger move (with a seperate movefactory so you can configure relativeSelections independently of your currrent movefactories and evaluate the union of those generated moves) which creates a new availability and immediatly fills in appointments and resources too. In the examination problem for example, you 'll see 3 moves: RoomChangeMove & PeriodChangeMove (fine grained) ExamSwitchMove (course grained as it moves 2 exams, both in room and period) 2) You could also change the rewarding aspect of your score function to avoid score traps. Like a chosen availability with less then 5 resources doesn't trigger the constraint. In the manners2009 problem for example, you 'll see the extra score rule atLeastOneJobTypePerTableScoreGuider: - twoSameJobTypePerTable: punish all tables without 2 of a profession - atLeastOneJobTypePerTableScoreGuider: punish all tables with 1 of a profession even harder The SeatDesignationSwitchMove can only move 1 profession at a time at a table, so without atLeastOneJobTypePerTableScoreGuider it would have no insentive to move 1 profession to a table with 0 of that profession. 3) On trunk you can plug in a custom deciderScoreComparatorFactory and a custom ScoreDefinition. Keep the annoying constraint separately in the Score and make your deciderScoreComparatorFactory ignore it every 50 steps for a duration of 10 steps. With kind regards, Geoffrey De Smet Laurent Michenaud schreef: