Meetings scheduling solver enhancement with local consistency reinforcement

Applied Intelligence

Volumn 24, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 143-154

  Hassine, Ahlem Ben ^a   Ho, Tu Bao ^a   Ito, Takayuki ^b,c  

^a JAPAN ADVANCED INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY   (Japan)

^b NAGOYA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (Japan)

^c NIT   (Japan)

Author keywords

Local consistency enforcement; Meeting scheduling problems; Multi agent system; Valued distributed constraint satisfaction problems

Indexed keywords

COMBINATORIAL PROBLEMS; COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS; LOCAL CONSISTENCY ENFORCEMENT; MEETING SCHEDULING (MS); VALUED DISTRIBUTED CONSTRAINT SATISFACTION PROBLEMS;

DISTRIBUTED COMPUTER SYSTEMS; MULTI AGENT SYSTEMS; NETWORK PROTOCOLS; SCHEDULING;

PROBLEM SOLVING;

EID: 33644995743     PISSN: 0924669X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10489-006-6935-y     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Abdennadher S, Schlenker H (1999) Nurse scheduling using constraint logic programming. In: Proc. IAAI, pp 838-843
2. BenHassine A, Ghédira K (2002) How to establish arc-consistency by reactive agents. In: Proc. ECAI, pp 156-160
3. BenHassine A, Ito T, Ho TB (2004) Scheduling meetings with distributed local consistency reinforcement. In Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence of the IEA/AIE, pp 708-717
4. BenHassine A, Défago X, Ho TB (2004) Agent-based approach to dynamic meeting scheduling problems. In: Proc. 3rd Inter. Joint Conference AAMAS, pp 1132-1139
5. Brakker RR, Dikker F, Tempelman F, Wognum PM (1993) Diagnosing and solving over-determined constraint satisfaction problems. In: Proc. IJCAI, pp 276-281
6. Chandy KM, Lamport L (1985) Distributed snapshots: determining global states of distributed systems. TOCS 3(1): 63-75
7. Ephrati E, Zlotkin G, Rosenschein JS (1994) A non-manipulable meeting scheduling system. In: Proc. Inter. Workshop on Distributed Artificial Intelligence, pp 105-125
8. Ephrati E, Rosenschein JS (1991) The clarke tax as a consensus mechanism among automated agents. In: Proc. the 9th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp 173-178
9. Freuder EC, Wallace RJ (1990) Partial constraint satisfaction. Artificial Intelligence 58(1-3):21-70
10. Franzin MS, Freuder EC, Rossi F, Wallace R (2002) Multi-agent meeting scheduling with preferences: efficiency, privacy loss, and solution quality. In: Proc. AAAI Workshop on Preference in AI and CP
11. Franzin MS, Freuder EC, Rossi F, Wallace R (2004) Multiagent meeting scheduling with preferences: efficiency, solution quality and privacy loss. Computational Intelligence 20(2):264-286
12. Garrido L, Sycara K (1996) Multi-agent meeting scheduling: preliminary experimental results. In: Proc. ICMAS, pp 95-102
13. Luo X, Leung HF Lee JH-M (2000) Theory and properties of selfish protocol for multi-agent meeting scheduling using fuzzy constraints. In: Proc. ECAI, pp 373-377
14. Mackworth AK (1970) Consistency in network of relations. Artificial Intelligence 8:99-118
15. Montanari U (1974) Networks of constraints: fundamental properties and applications to picture processing. Information Sciences 7:95-132
16. Nash JF (1953) Two-person cooperative games. Econometrica 21:128-140
17. Schiex T, Fargier H, Verfaillie G (1995) Valued constraint satisfaction problems: hard and easy problems. In: Proc. 14th IJCAI, pp 631-637
18. Sycara K, Liu JS (1994) Distributed meeting scheduling. In: Proc. 16th Annual Conference of Cognitive Society
19. Stergiou K, Walsh T (1999) The difference all-difference makes. In: Proc. IJCAI. pp 414-419
20. Sen S, Haynes T, Arora N (1997) Satisfying user preferences while negotiating meetings. Inter. Journal of Human-Computer Studies 47:407-427
21. Sen S, Durfee EH (1994) On the design of an adaptive meeting scheduler. In: Proc. 10th IEEE Conference on AI Applications, pp 40-46
22. Tsuruta T, Shintani T (2000) Scheduling meetings using distributed valued constraint satisfaction algorithm. In: Proc. of ECAI, pp 383-387