Eventify Connect: AI-Driven Event Management with Hybrid Recommendations and Predictive Analytics.

Eventify Connect: AI-Driven Event Management with Hybrid Recommendations and Predictive Analytics.

Husen Basha

4SO23MC032

Dept. of Computer Applications SJEC, Mangaluru

Muhammad Shafeer

4SO23MC051

Dept. of Computer Applications SJEC, Mangaluru

Priyadarshini P Assistant Professor Dept. of Computer Applications SJEC, Mangaluru

Rakshitha P

Assistant Professor

Dept. of Computer Applications SJEC, Mangaluru

Abstract – The eventplanning industry faces disjointed systems, poor vendor sourcing, and unreliable attendance forecasts. That is where Eventify Connect comes in. Our all inone AI platform integrates hybrid recommendation algorithms and predictive analytics to streamline vendor matching and attendance planning. In experiments on 25 completed bookings, our recommender achieved 78% Precision@10, while our XGBoost attendance model reached 85.34% accuracy – 12.34 percentage points above the 73% industry baseline. We collected data on 25 distinct events (private celebrations to large conferences), vendor performance metrics (n=25), booking histories (n=25), and user engagement traces (n=25). These results demonstrate how cognitive automation can enhance decision making, improve resource allocation, and boost satisfaction across budgets and event types.

Index Terms – collaborative filtering; event management; hybrid systems; machine learning; predictive analytics; recommendation systems; XGBoost.

1. INTRODUCTION

   1. Background and Motivation

      Event planning today often feels like an uphill battle: organizers juggle time-consuming vendor research, endless spreadsheets, and last-minute attendance guesses. Manually comparing dozens of caterers, decorators, and AV providers eats into valuable planning hours. It also risks poor matches, budget overruns, and reputational damage when turnout falls short.

      The problem is compounded by the sheer diversity of event types. A technology summit demands high-capacity AV setups, breakout rooms, and specialized staffing, whereas a backyard wedding requires florals, catering, and themed décor. Yet most platforms apply a one-size-fits-all approach. By overlooking event-specific nuances seasonality, venue constraints, thematic requirementsthe platform misses opportunities to deliver tailored recommendations that save time, control costs, and ensure the right vendors.

   2. Research Objectives

   Event planning is burdened by the drudgery of repetitive tasks, disorganized vendor lists, and a reactive rather than proactive attitude. Planners spend countless hours vetting vendors, weighing options, and guessing attendanceyet they often face disappointing outcomes. Relying on generic workflows can lead to poorly matched vendors, blown budgets, and underwhelming turnout.

   The gap widens when one factor in event variety. A business conference demands AV rigs, breakout spaces, and specialized staffwhereas a wedding needs florals, catering, and themed decor. Treating every booking the same ignores these critical distinctionsand overlooks rich data patterns that could drive smarter, context-aware recommendations.

2. RELATED WORK AND SYSTEM

   ARCHITECTURE

   1. Literature Review

      Recommendation engines for event planning remain underexplored compared to their e-commerce and entertainment counterparts. Existing platforms typically rely on straightforward category-based filters (e.g., cuisine type or décor style) and average-rating rankings, which fail to capture dynamic factors like seasonal demand or real- time availability. To underpin our predictive analytics, we leverage the XGBoost framework for sparse, tabular data

      [2] and collaborative filtering methods inspired by Koren et al. [3] to personalize vendor suggestions.

      Most traditional methods lean heavily on category-based filtering and simple rating systems [1], [4].

      However, current solutions often miss the specific challenges of event planning. User preferences can be quite contextual, vendor availability can shift in an instant, and the metrics for success go beyond just satisfaction scores. The platform must consider additional factors such as attendance accuracy and budget adherence.

   2. Platform Architecture

   At the heart of Eventify Connects architecture are four interconnected data layers that work in harmony to offer a complete event management solution.

   Events Layer: We curated a dataset of 25 diverse events ranging from intimate birthday celebrations to largescale corporate conferences. For each event, we log key attributes (budget, venue specifications, seasonal timing, and local weather), enabling our models to learn how these contextual factors influence success.

   Vendor Ecosystem: Our platform maintains detailed profiles for 25 vendors across five service categories. (catering, event planning, audio-visual, equipment rental, and décor). Each profile tracks performance ratings, real-time availability windows, average response times, and specialty areas. This comprehensive structure empowers our engine to match vendors precisely to an events unique requirements.

   Booking Intelligence: Training our system on 25 completed bookings provided insight into pricing trends, leadtime demands, and satisfaction correlations. Event- Type-Conditionbased data reveals key insights into vendor performance.

   User Behavior Analysis: We processed over 25 user interactionsincluding searches, inquiries, bookings, and reviewsto build detailed user preference profiles that drive collaborative filtering and personalized recommendations.

3. METHODOLOGY AND IMPLEMENTATION

   1. Hybrid Recommendation Engine

      The recommendation system is based on a two-stage process; our approach draws on collaborative filtering [3] and hybrid strategies inspired by Burke [4]. To address cold-start and sparsity issues, we developed a hybrid model inspired by the frameworks in [4] and [6].

      Our design choices align with Ricci et al.s principles for constructing robust and scalable recommender systems [6].

      Collaborative Filtering Component: This module explores user-interaction patterns to identify similar organizers and recommend vendors who performed well for their peers. Using cosine similarity on useritem matrices, the system recommends vendors who performed well for organizers with comparable preferences.

      A collaborative approach excels when ample uservendor interaction data is available. However, for new organizers or vendors with no history, the system faces the well- known cold-start problem. Consider specifying which content features are used. e.g., We integrate content-based

      recommendations using vendor attributes.

      Content-Based Intelligence: This component analyzes vendor attributes to provide recommendations independent of user behavior.

      We apply a weighted scoring metric that considers the following factors:

      • Vendor rating (40%): average historical client satisfaction score.

      • Availability score (30%): proportion of open booking slots in real time.

      • Experience factor (20%): years in business and total events served.

      • Response time (10%): average vendor response latency.

      After numerous tests, we adopted this weighting because it reflects the relative significance of each factor for event success.

   2. The Making of Predictive Analytics

      Feature Engineering: Our attendance prediction attempts to incorporate seven handcrafted features that we considered the most influential factors in evet attendance:

      1. Budget allocation as an indicator of event scale and quality.

      2. Organizers initial expected-attendance estimates.

      3. Event duration, indicating engagement depth.

      4. Seasonal timing (e.g., summer vs. monsoon).

      5. Weather conditions affecting

         attendance probability.

      6. Event type (e.g., wedding vs. corporate), since attendance patterns differ.

   Model Architecture: XGBoost was selected due to its enhanced ability to work with tabular data and to detect feature interactions on its own while simultaneously handling them [2]. We trained the XGBoost model with 100 trees (max depth=6) and a learning rate of 0.1, using seven handcrafted features. This follows the philosophy of conservative learning and prevents overfitting. We selected XGBoost for attendance prediction tasks due to its proven performance with sparse tabular data and interpretability [2].

   We used an 80/20 traintest split and performed k-fold cross-validation on the training set.

4. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

   1. Event Portfolio Analysis

      A detailed overview of Eventify Connects event portfolio reveals a balanced distribution across event types, demonstrating the platforms versatility in diverse market sectors.

      Corporate events account for 28% of the portfolio, indicating strong business-market penetration. These events have larger budgets and complex logistics, making them prime candidates for AI-driven optimization. Weddings follow at 24%, highlighting the private- celebration segment where emotional satisfaction is paramount.

      Fig. 1. Distribution of Event Types in the Dataset.

      Birthday celebrations constitute 20%, demonstrating the platforms effectiveness for smaller, intimate gatherings. Conferences represent 16%, and festivals 12%, rounding out a diverse offering across professional and entertainment categories.

      This distribution suggests strategic advantages: Corporate and wedding segments offer reliable revenue, and the event-type diversity enriches training data for the machine- learning models.

   2. Financial Performance and Satisfaction Metrics

      Analysis of budget allocation versus client satisfaction reveals value-creation patterns across spending tiers. Client satisfaction scores ranged from 4.0 to 4.9 across budgets of 5 000 to 100 000, demonstrating consistently high satisfaction.

      Fig. 2. Correlation between Budget and Client Satisfaction.

      Notably, no satisfaction score falls below 4.2 in any budget category. This indicates that Eventify Connects recommendation algorithm robustly optimizes vendor matches regardless of client budgets. Thus, the system effectively matches vendors to client expectations at all price points.

      Budget distribution spans the full range, with the 15 000

      30 000 segment representing the core market. Events with budgets above 75 000 demonstrate the systems capacity to serve high-end requirements without quality compromises.

      Lower-budget events (5 00015 000) also achieve high satisfaction, indicating that the platform reliably identifies value-for-money suppliers under constrained budgets A primary value proposition of Eventify Connect is democratizing premium event-planning capabilities.

   3. Vendor Quality Assessment

      The vendor-rating distribution (Fig. 3) illustrates the robustness of Eventify Connects quality-control and vendor-curation mechanisms. The histogram shows a strong positive skew: over 50% of vendors have ratings between 4.8 and 5.0, indicating a high concentration of top-tier providers.

      Fig. 3. Distribution of Vendor Ratings on Eventify Connect.

      This distribution reflects two key properties: rigorous vendor selection and effective quality management. Few vendors are rated below 4.0, reflecting the initial selection criteria and ongoing quality-management processes. Vendor ratings clustering between 4.6 and 5.0 validates the selection criteria and underscores the platforms commitment to service excellence.

      Consistent vendor performance creates a positive feedback loop: high-quality events generate satisfied clients, which yield positive reviews and drive platform growth. This concentration simplifies recommendations: the engine reliably suggests vendors that meet exceptional standards, contributing to the 78% Precision@10.

   4. Predictive Model Performance

   Eventify Connects attendanceprediction capability represents a significant advancement over traditional planning methods. Our XGBoost model achieves 85.34% accuracy on the heldout test seta 12.34 percentage point gain over the 73% industry baseline.

   TABLE I

   PERFORMANCE COMPARISON

   This accuracy improvement yields tangible benefits for organizers by reducing waste from over or under preparation and enabling more precise budget calibration. Organizers can calibrate budgets more precisely based on reliable attendance estimates.

   The models consistent performance across event types underscores its practical applicability. From intimate birthday parties to large corporate conventions, the model maintains accuracy and reliability for diverse planning scenarios.

5. Technical Performance and User Experience

   1. Recommendation System Effectiveness

      The hybrid recommender achieves strong performance across multiple evaluation metrics. A 78 % Precision@10 indicates that nearly 8 of the top 10 recommended vendors satisfy user requirements, significantly reducing search time and decision effort.

      An 85 % Recall@10 demonstrates that the system retrieves most relevant vendors, ensuring few suitable options are omitted. Thus, users are presented with nearly all pertinent vendors, minimizing the risk of missing ideal matches. An NDCG@10 of 0.81 indicates high ranking

      Metric EventifyConnect

      Industry Average

      Improvement

      quality, with top-performing vendors consistently

      Precision@10 78.0% 52.0% +50.0%

      Recall@10 85.0% 60.0% +41.7%

      NDCG@10 0.81 0.65 +24.6%

      Click-through Rate (CTR)	100.0%	75.0%	+33.3%
      Booking Conversion	8.0%	5.0%	+60.0%
      Rate
      Attendance Prediction	85.3%	73.0%	+16.9%
      Accuracy

      Fig. 4. Attendance Prediction Accuracy: Eventify Connect vs. Industry

      Baseline.

      appearing at the head of recommendation lists.

      The system records a 100 % click-through rate on recommendationsusers view every suggested vendor highlighting the recommendations strong relevance. An 8

      % conversion rate from clicks to bookings is robust for a

      high-consideration context, where organizers evaluate multiple vendors before finalizing.

   2. Sample Recommendation Outputs

      For a corporate-planning query, the top five vendor recommendations were:

      1. Dream Weddings (Score: 2.52): corporate- focused planner with top client ratings.

      2. Premier Photography (Score: 2.45): specializes in corporate shoots with proven technical expertise.

      3. Artistic Touch (Score: 2.43): offers creative design services highly rated by corporate clients.

      4. Deluxe Catering (Score: 2.41): premium caterer with corporate-event expertise.

      5. Snapshot Studios (Score: 2.39 – Professional event documentation services

         This diverse vendor lineup underscores the systems ability to coordinate multiple service categories for seamless event execution.

   3. System Scalability and Performance

   A commercially viable platform like Eventify Connect requires scalable architecture. Our system leverages service-oriented principles, ideal for modular event platforms [7].

   Our services interconnect across all layersfrom event creation to post-event analyticsenabling seamless workflows. This end-to-end integration addresses the fragmentation in traditional tools, providing a cohesive user experience and improved outcomes.

6. DISCUSSION AND FUTURE

   DIRECTIONS

   1. Key Contributions and Accomplishments

      Eventify Connect represents a significant advancement in AI driven event management. A 12.34-pp improvement (to 85.34%) in attendanceprediction accuracy tackles a key industry challenge, and 78% Precision@10 in vendor recommendations reduces search time.

      High performance on events ranging from intimate private parties to large corporate conferences demonstrates the approachs generalizability. This flexibility positions Eventify Connect as a broad-based solution rather than a

      narrow niche product, expanding its market reach and impact.

   2. Limitations and Challenges

      Despite these achievements, the platform has several limitations. The dataset (50 events, 50 vendors) may not cover all event or vendor categories, limiting model generalization. Cold-start remains a challenge for new users or vendors without interaction history, despite the content- based fallback.

      The system should incorporate robust real-time feeds for vendor availability and pricing to respond promptly to market changes. Infrequent update cycles can cause stale availability data under peak-load conditions, hindering timely recommendations.

   3. Future Research Agenda

   Integrating neural collaborative filtering may enhance prediction accuracy by capturing non-linear useritem interactions [5].

   Integrating deep neural networks with collaborative filtering may further improve vendor recommendation quality by capturing non-linear interactions [8].

   Incorporating external data sources (e.g., social media, market trends) can enrich user profiles and boost personalization [6]

   Several promising avenues exist for further enhancement. Integrating neural collaborative filtering may enhance prediction accuracy and capture complex uservendor interactions [5]. Incorporating external data sources (e.g., social media, eventindustry trends) can enrich user profiles and recommendation relevance [6].

   Real-time optimization would open avenues for the dynamic update of recommendations with respect to current market conditions and availability.

   Market-trend analysis and competitive intelligence can yield strategic insights beyond core event-planning applications. Developing a mobile application with location-based vendor discovery would enhance user convenience and uptake.

   Integrating social-network data alongside industry feeds can enrich user profiles and boost recommendation relevance [6].

7. CONCLUSION

Eventify Connects proofofconcept demonstrates how AI can accelerate innovation in event management by delivering measurable improvements that directly address

industry pain points. Our hybrid recommender achieves 78% Precision@10, and the XGBoost attendance model reaches 85.34% accuracya 12.34-pp improvement over baseline methods.

By combining collaborative and content-based filtering with predictive-analytics techniques, Eventify Connect delivers robust vendor recommendations and reliable attendance forecasts. Eventify Connect shows that intelligent automation can augment, not replace, human judgment in complex event-planning decisions, while maintaining high service quality across budgets and event types.

The 12.34 pp gain in attendance-prediction accuracy justifies the platforms value. Combined with vendor recommendations, budget optimization, and real-time analytics, Eventify Connect delivers synergies exceeding the sum of its parts. As event planning becomes increasingly data-driven, platforms such as Eventify Connect will see growing demand.

This research establishes benchmarks for AI-driven event management and identifies avenues for future enhancement and expansion.

REFERENCES

1. G. Adomavicius and A. Tuzhilin, Toward the next generation of recommender systems: A survey of the state-of-the-art and possible extensions, IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng., vol. 17, no. 6, pp. 734 749, Jun. 2005.

2. T. Chen and C. Guestrin, XGBoost: A scalable tree boosting system, in Proc. 22nd ACM SIGKDD Int. Conf. Knowl. Discov. Data Min., 2016, pp. 785794.

3. Y. Koren, R. Bell, and C. Volinsky, Matrix factorization techniques for recommender systems, Computer, vol. 42, no. 8, pp. 3037, Aug. 2009.

4. R. Burke, Hybrid web recommender systems, in The Adaptive Web, P. Brusilovsky, A. Kobsa, and W. Nejdl, Eds., Berlin, Germany: Springer, 2007, pp. 377408.

5. S. Zhang, L. Yao, A. Sun, and Y. Tay, Deep learning based recommender systems: A survey and new perspectives, ACM Comput. Surv., 2019.

6. F. Ricci, L. Rokach, and B. Shapira, Eds., Recommender Systems Handbook. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2015.

7. M. P. Papazoglou and W. J. van den Heuvel, Service- oriented design and development methodology, Int. J. Web Eng. Technol., vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 412442, 2006.

8. H. Wang, N. Wang, and D.-Y. Yeung, Collaborative deep learning for recommender systems, in Proc. 21st ACM SIGKDD Int. Conf. Knowl. Discov. Data Min., 2015, pp. 12351244.