[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/ skip to main content
10.5555/1558013.1558106guideproceedingsArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesaamasConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Free access

Evaluating hybrid constraint tightening for scheduling agents

Published: 10 May 2009 Publication History

Abstract

Hybrid Scheduling Problems (HSPs) combine temporal and finite-domain variables via hybrid constraints that dictate that specific bounds on temporal constraints rely on assignments to finite-domain variables. Hybrid constraint tightening (HCT) reformulates hybrid constraints to apply the tightest consistent temporal bound possible, assisting in search space pruning. The contribution of this paper is to empirically evaluate the HCT approach using a state-of-the-art Satisfiability Modulo Theory solver on realistic, interesting problems related to developing scheduling agents to assist people with cognitive impairments. We demonstrate that HCT leads to orders of magnitude reduction of search complexity. The success of HCT is enhanced as we apply HCT to hybrid constraints involving increasing numbers of finite-domain variables and finite-domains with increasing size, as well as hybrid constraints expressing increasing temporal precision. We show that while HCT reduces search complexity for all but the simplest problems, the relative effectiveness is dampened on problems with partially conditional temporal constraints and hybrid constraints with increasing temporal disjunctions. Finally, we present our preliminary investigations that indicate that HCT can assist in increasing communication efficacy in a multiagent setting.

References

[1]
Boerkoel, J. and Durfee, E. 2008. Hybrid Constraint Tightening for Hybrid Constraint Scheduling. In Proc. Of AAAI-2008, 1446--1449.
[2]
de Moura, L. and Bjørner, N. 2008. Z3: An efficient SMT solver. In Proc. Of TACACS-2008, 337--340.
[3]
Hunsberger, L. 2003. Distributing the Control of a Temporal Network among Multiple Agents. In Proc. Of AAMAS-2003, 899--906.
[4]
Moffitt, M. Peintner, B., and Pollack, M. 2005. Augmenting Disjunctive Temporal Problems with Finite-Domain Constraints. In Proc. of AAAI-2005, 1187--1192.
[5]
Myers, K. Berry, P. Blythe, J. Conleyn, K. Gervasio, M. McGuinness, D. Morley, D. Pfeffer, A. Pollack, M. and Tambe, M. An intelligent personal assistant for task and time management. In AI Magazine, 2007.
[6]
Schwartz, P. 2007. Managing Complex Scheduling Problems with Dynamic and Hybrid Constraints. PhD. Diss., Computer Science and Engin., Univ. of Mich., Ann Arbor.
[7]
Stergiou, K., and Koubarakis, M. 1998. Backtracking algorithms for disjunctions of temporal constraints. In Proc. of AAAI-98, 248--253.
[8]
Xu, K, Boussemart, F. Hemery, F. and Lecoutre, C. 2007. Random constraint satisfaction: Easy generation of hard (satisfiable) instances. Artificial Intelligence 171: 514--534.
[9]
Yokoo, M. and Hirayama, K. 2000. Algorithms for distributed constraint satisfaction: A review. In Proc. Of AAMAS-2000, 198--212.

Index Terms

  1. Evaluating hybrid constraint tightening for scheduling agents

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

    Information & Contributors

    Information

    Published In

    cover image Guide Proceedings
    AAMAS '09: Proceedings of The 8th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems - Volume 1
    May 2009
    701 pages
    ISBN:9780981738161

    Sponsors

    • Drexel University
    • Wiley-Blackwell
    • Microsoft Research: Microsoft Research
    • Whitestein Technologies
    • European Office of Aerospace Research and Development, Air Force Office of Scientific Research, United States Air Force Research Laboratory
    • The Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents

    Publisher

    International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems

    Richland, SC

    Publication History

    Published: 10 May 2009

    Author Tags

    1. hybrid constraint tightening
    2. scheduling agents

    Qualifiers

    • Research-article

    Acceptance Rates

    AAMAS '09 Paper Acceptance Rate 132 of 651 submissions, 20%;
    Overall Acceptance Rate 1,155 of 5,036 submissions, 23%

    Contributors

    Other Metrics

    Bibliometrics & Citations

    Bibliometrics

    Article Metrics

    • 0
      Total Citations
    • 167
      Total Downloads
    • Downloads (Last 12 months)30
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)5
    Reflects downloads up to 14 Dec 2024

    Other Metrics

    Citations

    View Options

    View options

    PDF

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    Login options

    Media

    Figures

    Other

    Tables

    Share

    Share

    Share this Publication link

    Share on social media