Representing and Scheduling Satisficing Tasks
A satisficing solution to a problem is one that is “good enough” or satisfactory in a particular situation. Because of the lack of task predictability, and interdependences among tasks it is desirable to use both approximate solutions for tasks and approximate scheduling algorithms for scheduling task execution. Iterative refinement and the use of multiple methods are two approaches that achieve satisficing behavior. This paper examines these approaches including their effects on task monitoring and on sharing intermediate results among tasks. The design-to-time approach to scheduling satisficing tasks is then discussed.
KeywordsSchedule Algorithm Intermediate Result Task Group Task Structure Iterative Refinement
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Paul R. Cohen, Marc S. Atkin and Eric Hansen. The interval reduction strategy for monitoring cupcake problems. CS Technical Report 94-09, University of Massachusetts, 1994.Google Scholar
- Bruce D’Ambrosio. Resource bounded-agents in an uncertain world. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Real-Time Artificial Intelligence Problems, IJCAI-89, Detroit, August 1989.Google Scholar
- T. Dean and M. Boddy. An analysis of time-dependent planning. In Proceedings of the Seventh National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 49–54, St. Paul, Minnesota, August 1988.Google Scholar
- Keith S. Decker, Alan J. Garvey, Victor R. Lesser, and Marty A. Humphrey. An approach to modeling environment and task characteristics for coordination. In Charles J. Petrie, Jr., editor, Enterprise Integration Modeling: Proceedings of the First International Conference, pages 379–388. MIT Press, 1992.Google Scholar
- Alan Garvey, Marty Humphrey, and Victor Lesser. Task interdependences in design-to-time real-time scheduling. In Proceedings of the Eleventh National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 580–585, Washington, D.C., July 1993.Google Scholar
- Alan Garvey, Keith Decker, and Victor Lesser. A negotiation-based interface between a real-time scheduler and a decision-maker. CS Technical Report 94-08, University of Massachusetts, 1994.Google Scholar
- D. M. Hart, S. D. Anderson, and P. R. Cohen. Envelopes as a vehicle for improving the efficiency of plan execution. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Innovative Approaches to Planning, Scheduling and Control, pages 71–76, November 1990.Google Scholar
- Victor R. Lesser, Jasmina Pavlin, and Edmund Durfee. Approximate processing in real-time problem solving. AI Magazine, 9(1):49–61, Spring 1988.Google Scholar
- J. W. S. Liu, K. J. Lin, W. K. Shih, A. C. Yu, J. Y. Chung, and W. Zhao. Algorithms for scheduling imprecise computations. IEEE Computer, 24(5):58–68, May 1991.Google Scholar
- Stuart J. Russell and Shlomo Zilberstein. Composing real-time systems. In Proceedings of the Twelfth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 212–217, Sydney, Australia, August 1991.Google Scholar
- Jay K. Strosnider and C. J. Paul. A structured view of real-time problem solving. Technical report, Carnegie Mellon University, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, 1993.Google Scholar