MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401023859 · doi:10.24963/ijcai.2024/953

Proactive Data-driven Scheduling of Business Processes

2024· article· en· W4401023859 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBayesian Modeling and Causal Inference
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPartially observable Markov decision processComputer scienceSolverMathematical optimizationMarkov decision processSampling (signal processing)Benchmark (surveying)AlgorithmMarkov chainMarkov processMathematicsFilter (signal processing)Machine learningMarkov model

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Proactive scheduling creates robust offline schedules that optimize resource utilization and minimize job flow times. This work addresses scheduling challenges in business processes, often encountered in service systems, which differ from traditional applications like manufacturing due to inherent uncertainties in activity durations, and human resource availability. We model the business process scheduling problem (BPSP) as a variation of stochastic resource-constrained multi-project scheduling (RCMPSP), and apply process mining to infer unknown parameter values from historical event data. To overcome the randomness in activity durations, we transform the problem into its deterministic counterpart, and prove that the latter provides a lower bound on the Makespan of the stochastic problem. Our approach integrates data-driven Monte Carlo simulation with constraint programming to generate proactive schedules that guarantee, with high probability, that the Makespan remains below a predefined threshold. We evaluate our approach using synthetic datasets with varying levels of uncertainty and size. In addition, we apply the approach to a real-world dataset from an outpatient cancer hospital, demonstrating its effectiveness in optimizing the process Makespan by an average of 5% to 14%.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.975
Threshold uncertainty score0.236

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.079
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.228 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBayesian Modeling and Causal InferenceFrench-language works237,207