Advertisement

Emergent Timetabling Organization

  • Gauthier Picard
  • Carole Bernon
  • Marie-Pierre Gleizes
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3690)

Abstract

This paper presents the usage of cooperative self-organization to design adaptive artificial systems. Cooperation can be viewed as a local criterion for agents to self-organize and then to perform a more adequate collective function. This paper shows an application of cooperative behaviors to a dynamic distributed timetabling problem, ETTO, in which the constraint satisfaction is distributed among cooperative agents. This application has been prototyped and shows positive results on adaptation, robustness and efficiency of this kind of approach.

Keywords

Time Slot Constraint Satisfaction Global Constraint Representative Agent Current Reservation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Kohonen, T.: Self-Organising Maps. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bonabeau, E., Theraulaz, G., Deneubourg, J.L., Aron, S., Camazine, S.: Self-Organization in Social Insects. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 12, 188–193 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Capera, D., Georgé, J., Gleizes, M.P., Glize, P.: The AMAS Theory for Complex Problem Solving Based on Self-organizing Cooperative Agents. In: 1st International TAPOCS Workshop at IEEE 12th WETICE, pp. 383–388. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2003)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Georgé, J.P., Edmonds, B., Glize, P.: Making Self-Organising Adaptive Multiagent Systems Work. In: Methodologies and Software Engineering for Agent Systems, pp. 321–340. Kluwer, Dordrecht (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bistarelli, S., Fargier, H., Mantanari, U., Rossi, F., Schiex, T., Verfaillie, G.: Semiring-based constraints CSPs and valued CSPs: frameworks, properties, and comparison. Constraints: an International Journal 4, 199–240 (1999)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dechter, Meiri, Pearl: Temporal constraint networks. Artificial Intelligence 49, 61–95 (1991)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Yokoo, M., Durfee, E., Ishida, Y., Kubawara, K.: The Distributed Constraint Satisfaction Problem: Formalization and Algorithms. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 10, 673–685 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Socha, K., Knowles, J., Sampels, M.: A MAX-MIN Ant System for the University Timetabling Problem. In: Dorigo, M., Di Caro, G.A., Sampels, M. (eds.) Ant Algorithms 2002. LNCS, vol. 2463, pp. 1–13. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Minton, S., Johnston, M., Philips, A., Laird, P.: Minimizing Conflicts: a Heuristic Repair Method for Constraint Satisfaction and Scheduling Problems 58, 160–205 (1992)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Müller, T., Rudova, H.: Minimal Perturbation Problem in Course Timetabling. In: Proc. of the 5th International Conference of the Practice and Theory of Automated Timetabling (PATAT), Pittsburg, USA (2004)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cambazard, H., Demazeau, F., Jussien, N., David, P.: Interactively Solving School Timetabling Problems using Extensions of Constraint Programming. In: Proc. of the 5th International Conference of the Practice and Theory of Automated Timetabling (PATAT), Pittsburg, USA (2004)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gauthier Picard
    • 1
  • Carole Bernon
    • 1
  • Marie-Pierre Gleizes
    • 1
  1. 1.IRITUniversité Paul SabatierToulouseFrance

Personalised recommendations