näkemys - Algorithms and Data Structures - # Public Event Scheduling with Busy Agents

Maximizing Public Event Attendance for Busy Agents

Q: How can the proposed algorithms be extended or adapted to handle more complex constraints or objectives, such as fairness considerations or preferences over events

The proposed algorithms can be extended or adapted to handle more complex constraints or objectives by incorporating additional criteria into the optimization process. For example, to address fairness considerations, the algorithms can be modified to ensure that the distribution of event schedules among agents is equitable. This can be achieved by introducing constraints that limit the disparity in the total agreement achieved by different agents. Additionally, preferences over events can be integrated by assigning weights to events based on agents' preferences and optimizing the schedule to maximize the weighted sum of agreements. By adjusting the objective function and introducing constraints that reflect fairness and preferences, the algorithms can be tailored to address a broader range of considerations in public event scheduling.

Q: What are the practical implications of the NP-hardness result, and how might it inform the design of heuristic or approximation algorithms for real-world public event scheduling problems

The NP-hardness result has significant practical implications for real-world public event scheduling problems. It indicates that finding an optimal solution to the scheduling problem is computationally challenging and may require exponential time in the worst case. This result can inform the design of heuristic or approximation algorithms by guiding the development of efficient and effective strategies for generating near-optimal solutions within a reasonable time frame. Heuristic algorithms can leverage insights from the NP-hardness result to prioritize certain aspects of the scheduling problem and explore solution spaces efficiently. Approximation algorithms can use the hardness result to establish performance guarantees and trade-offs between solution quality and computational complexity. By understanding the NP-hardness of the problem, researchers and practitioners can develop tailored algorithms that balance computational efficiency with solution quality in real-world event scheduling scenarios.

Q: The paper focuses on maximizing the total agreement across agents. Are there other meaningful objective functions or ways to define the value of a schedule that could be explored in future work

While the paper focuses on maximizing the total agreement across agents as the primary objective function, there are several other meaningful ways to define the value of a schedule in public event scheduling problems. One alternative objective could be to minimize the overall waiting time or idle time for agents between events, aiming to optimize the efficiency of their schedules. Another approach could be to maximize the diversity of events attended by agents, ensuring a well-rounded experience for participants. Additionally, incorporating constraints related to resource utilization or event dependencies could lead to objectives focused on minimizing conflicts or maximizing the utilization of available resources. Exploring these alternative objective functions and constraints could provide valuable insights into different aspects of event scheduling and offer a more comprehensive understanding of the trade-offs involved in designing optimal schedules.

Keskeiset käsitteet

The goal is to find a schedule for public events and job schedules for agents that maximizes the total agreement, where agreement is the total time agents can attend the scheduled events.

Tiivistelmä

The paper studies the problem of Public Event Scheduling with Busy Agents (PESBA), where multiple public events need to be scheduled to coordinate the availability of multiple agents. Each agent has a set of jobs that must be preemptively processed, and the agents want to attend as many events as possible.

The key highlights and insights are:

The PESBA problem is shown to be NP-hard, even in the case where there is only one agent and the agent has only two rigid jobs.
For the case where the whole timeline is polynomially bounded, a natural greedy algorithm is proposed that achieves a 1/2-approximation. This algorithm works by having agents vote on the best positions for each unscheduled event, and then selecting the event and position that maximizes the total agreement.
The paper also shows that the agreement function is submodular, and that it can be viewed as the rank function of a matroid. This allows the greedy algorithm to be extended to the general case with an arbitrary timeline, achieving a 1/(α+1)-approximation, where α is the approximation ratio of the algorithm for the one-event instance.
An optimal algorithm is provided for the one-event instance, which implies a 1/2-approximate algorithm for the general case.

Mukauta tiivistelmää

Kirjoita tekoälyn avulla

Luo viitteet

Käännä lähde

toiselle kielelle

Luo miellekartta

lähdeaineistosta

Siirry lähteeseen

arxiv.org

Tilastot

There are no key metrics or important figures used to support the author's key logics.

Lainaukset

There are no striking quotes supporting the author's key logics.

Tärkeimmät oivallukset

Public Event Scheduling with Busy Agents

by Bo Li,Lijun ... klo arxiv.org 04-19-2024

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2404.11879.pdf

Public Event Scheduling with Busy Agents

Syvällisempiä Kysymyksiä

How can the proposed algorithms be extended or adapted to handle more complex constraints or objectives, such as fairness considerations or preferences over events

The proposed algorithms can be extended or adapted to handle more complex constraints or objectives by incorporating additional criteria into the optimization process. For example, to address fairness considerations, the algorithms can be modified to ensure that the distribution of event schedules among agents is equitable. This can be achieved by introducing constraints that limit the disparity in the total agreement achieved by different agents. Additionally, preferences over events can be integrated by assigning weights to events based on agents' preferences and optimizing the schedule to maximize the weighted sum of agreements. By adjusting the objective function and introducing constraints that reflect fairness and preferences, the algorithms can be tailored to address a broader range of considerations in public event scheduling.

What are the practical implications of the NP-hardness result, and how might it inform the design of heuristic or approximation algorithms for real-world public event scheduling problems

The NP-hardness result has significant practical implications for real-world public event scheduling problems. It indicates that finding an optimal solution to the scheduling problem is computationally challenging and may require exponential time in the worst case. This result can inform the design of heuristic or approximation algorithms by guiding the development of efficient and effective strategies for generating near-optimal solutions within a reasonable time frame. Heuristic algorithms can leverage insights from the NP-hardness result to prioritize certain aspects of the scheduling problem and explore solution spaces efficiently. Approximation algorithms can use the hardness result to establish performance guarantees and trade-offs between solution quality and computational complexity. By understanding the NP-hardness of the problem, researchers and practitioners can develop tailored algorithms that balance computational efficiency with solution quality in real-world event scheduling scenarios.

The paper focuses on maximizing the total agreement across agents. Are there other meaningful objective functions or ways to define the value of a schedule that could be explored in future work

While the paper focuses on maximizing the total agreement across agents as the primary objective function, there are several other meaningful ways to define the value of a schedule in public event scheduling problems. One alternative objective could be to minimize the overall waiting time or idle time for agents between events, aiming to optimize the efficiency of their schedules. Another approach could be to maximize the diversity of events attended by agents, ensuring a well-rounded experience for participants. Additionally, incorporating constraints related to resource utilization or event dependencies could lead to objectives focused on minimizing conflicts or maximizing the utilization of available resources. Exploring these alternative objective functions and constraints could provide valuable insights into different aspects of event scheduling and offer a more comprehensive understanding of the trade-offs involved in designing optimal schedules.