MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417507764 · doi:10.1080/00207721.2025.2602076

Approximate message passing algorithm for decentralised task assignment and scheduling

2025· article· en· W4417507764 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Systems Science · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOptimization and Search Problems
Canadian institutionsKootenay Association for Science & Technology
FundersMinistry of Science and ICT, South KoreaGyeonggi-do Regional Research CenterNational Research Foundation of Korea
KeywordsScheduling (production processes)Message passingTask (project management)Job shop schedulingFair-share schedulingRate-monotonic scheduling

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper proposes a decentralised algorithm, called task assignment and scheduling via approximate message passing (TAS-AMP), to address the task assignment and scheduling (TAS) problem in multi-agent systems. Approximate message passing (AMP) is a distributed algorithm developed for vehicle routing problems and is based on belief propagation in graphical models. Leveraging the framework of AMP while addressing its convergence limitations, TAS-AMP rapidly generates near-optimal task assignments and execution schedules by iteratively exchanging local messages among agents. To improve message convergence and solution quality, TAS-AMP introduces two key mechanisms: a pruning process and a conflict resolution phase. The pruning process refines each agent's schedule from the previous iteration using updated message values. This prevents unnecessary schedule reinitialization and thereby improves message convergence and solution stability. The conflict resolution phase reduces unassigned tasks and removes redundant assignments, ensuring a conflict-free solution. An ablation study and convergence analysis were conducted on various TAS-AMP configurations to validate the effectiveness of these mechanisms. Furthermore, numerical comparisons across diverse TAS instances demonstrated that TAS-AMP achieves enhanced solution quality and computational efficiency even under high reward heterogeneity.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
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 score0.896
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.290 · 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