A communication method for handling dynamic scheduling conflicts

Abstract

The application discloses a communication method for handling dynamic scheduling conflicts, relates to the technical field of conflict mediation, and can intelligently judge whether a new node is allowed to be inserted when original node negotiation is close to completion by introducing a timestamp-based pre-judgment mechanism in a multi-round communication process, thereby avoiding the problem that frequent interruption of negotiation progress is caused by unlimited insertion, and guaranteeing stability and convergence of the conflict handling process. Meanwhile, combined with compatible value calculation and historical trajectory rollback retrieval, the new node can be reasonably accessed according to the negotiation progress of the original node, secondary conflicts or chain conflicts caused by context loss are effectively reduced, and the efficiency and robustness of communication resolution of dynamic scheduling conflicts are improved as a whole, and the risk that the system falls into a long-term stalemate state in dynamic operation is reduced.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] This invention relates to the field of conflict resolution technology, and more specifically to a communication method for handling dynamic scheduling conflicts. Background Technology

[0002] In the operation of complex systems, such as smart manufacturing, vehicle networking, and power dispatching, multiple nodes often need to dynamically schedule limited resources at the same time. Due to the variability of task requirements, limited resources, and uncertain environment, scheduling conflicts between multiple nodes are inevitable. Without an effective handling mechanism, conflicts can lead to resource waste, task delays, or even system failure. Therefore, to solve this problem, existing methods express, transmit, and share conflict information through communication between nodes or between nodes and the scheduling center when conflicts occur. During the communication interaction, the conflicts are gradually resolved, thereby ensuring that the system can remain coordinated and orderly under dynamic operating conditions and avoiding global imbalance caused by single-point decisions or information silos.

[0003] Existing dynamic scheduling conflict communication methods mostly rely on centralized reporting, distributed point-to-point interaction, or broadcast sharing. When a node detects a conflict, it sends the conflict conditions to the scheduling center or relevant nodes, where the center makes a unified decision or the nodes negotiate in multiple rounds based on priority and preemption rules. However, these methods often only focus on synchronizing the final resolution result, and the intermediate states are prone to asynchrony during multi-round communication. For example, if two original nodes have reached a temporary compromise after several rounds of negotiation, and a new node inserts at this time, it often only obtains a partial negotiation fragment, leading to decisions based on outdated information, thus triggering new secondary conflicts or even chain conflicts. More importantly, when the original nodes are close to completing their negotiation, if new nodes keep joining, it will create an infinite insertion situation, causing the negotiation process to be frequently interrupted or even unable to complete. Ultimately, this not only reduces the efficiency and stability of conflict handling but may also cause the system to fall into a long-term stalemate during dynamic operation. Summary of the Invention

[0004] The purpose of this invention is to solve the problems mentioned above and provide a communication method for handling dynamic scheduling conflicts.

[0005] This invention proposes a communication method for handling dynamic scheduling conflicts, the method comprising:

[0006] Each node that resolves the current scheduling conflict through negotiation is recorded as the original conflict node, and the timestamp of each original conflict node when reporting the conflict condition is recorded, and the base timestamp is calculated.

[0007] The original conflicting nodes engage in multiple rounds of communication based on their respective conflict conditions, and the negotiation result trajectory is obtained based on the results of the gradual negotiation and resolution.

[0008] When a new conflict node appears, obtain the timestamp of its reported conflict conditions, and combine it with the baseline timestamp to determine whether the new conflict node is eligible to join the current negotiation.

[0009] If a new conflicting node is eligible to join the current negotiation, the compatibility value between the new conflicting node and the latest negotiation result is calculated. The compatibility value is compared with a preset threshold. If the compatibility value is not less than the preset threshold, the conflict condition of the new conflicting node is directly merged with the current negotiation result to generate a new negotiation initial state. All nodes continue to communicate and negotiate based on the new negotiation initial state until the final conflict resolution result is generated and output.

[0010] Optionally, the steps for calculating the base timestamp include:

[0011] Calculate the average timestamp of all original nodes when they reported the conflict conditions as the baseline timestamp.

[0012] Optionally, the original conflicting nodes engage in multiple rounds of communication based on their respective conflict conditions, and the steps to obtain the negotiation result trajectory based on the step-by-step negotiation resolution results include:

[0013] Map all conflict information corresponding to the conflict conditions reported by each original conflict node into a unified conflict condition vector.

[0014] Multiple rounds of interaction are performed between the original conflicting nodes according to the iterative communication protocol. The iterative communication protocol is used to trigger each node to broadcast its current condition vector and receive the condition vectors of other nodes in each interaction round.

[0015] After receiving condition vectors from other nodes, each node adaptively adjusts its own condition vector according to the conflict degree calculation function to achieve interaction in the current round.

[0016] After each round of interaction, a corresponding temporary negotiation result is generated, and the temporary negotiation result is stored differentially with the negotiation result of the previous round. The differential storage results form a negotiation result trajectory in chronological order.

[0017] Optionally, the steps for determining whether a new conflicting node is eligible to join the current negotiation, based on the baseline timestamp, include:

[0018] Calculate the difference between the timestamp of the new conflict node reporting the conflict condition and the base timestamp, and compare the difference with a preset difference threshold. If the difference is less than the preset difference threshold, the new conflict node is eligible to join the current negotiation and negotiate with the original conflict node to resolve the conflict.

[0019] If the difference is not less than the preset difference threshold, the new conflict node is not eligible to join the current negotiation; the insertion request of the new conflict node is directly blocked, the final negotiation result of the original conflict node is output first, and then a new resolution process is started to handle the scheduling conflict of the new conflict node.

[0020] Optionally, the step of calculating the compatibility value between the new conflicting node and the latest negotiation result includes:

[0021] Calculate the complementary coupling degree and historical concession fit degree between the new conflict node and the latest negotiation result. Establish a two-dimensional coordinate system with the complementary coupling degree and historical concession fit degree, and map the complementary coupling degree and historical concession fit degree into the two-dimensional coordinate system. The coordinate points correspond to the complementary coupling degree and historical concession fit degree, respectively.

[0022] Calculate the distance from the coordinate point in the two-dimensional coordinate system to the origin, and use the distance as the compatibility value between the new conflict node and the latest negotiation result.

[0023] Optionally, the calculation steps for the complementary coupling degree include:

[0024] Define the time interval corresponding to the resource demand of the new conflict node as the new node time interval. Obtain the set of all unallocated time intervals in the current negotiation results, and denote it as the current available time slice set. For each time slice in the current available time slice set, obtain its start time and end time, and compare them with the new node time interval. Calculate the sum of the time intersection lengths between the new node time interval and each available time slice. Then divide the sum of the time intersection lengths by the total duration of the new node time interval to obtain the resource time interleaving index.

[0025] Extract the resource demand of the new node and the remaining resources that can be allocated in the current negotiation result, respectively, and use the smaller one as the numerator and the larger one as the denominator. The resulting ratio is used as the resource demand symmetry rate.

[0026] Optionally, the calculation step of the complementary coupling degree further includes:

[0027] Get the duration of the new node task and the length of the longest time slice in the current available time slice set. Take the absolute value of the difference between the two and divide it by the sum of the two to get the task duration difference rate. Then subtract the task duration difference rate from the value to get the scheduling elasticity ratio.

[0028] The combined evaluation value of time and resource is obtained by multiplying the resource time staggered index and the resource demand symmetry rate by their respective square roots; then, the combined evaluation value is multiplied by the scheduling elasticity ratio to obtain the coupling enhancement factor.

[0029] Calculate the difference between the resource time stagger index and the resource demand symmetry rate and take the absolute value. Add one to the result to obtain the normalized penalty factor. Divide the coupling enhancement factor by the normalized penalty factor to finally obtain the complementary coupling degree value between the new node and the original conflicting node in the current negotiation result.

[0030] Optionally, the calculation steps for the historical concession fit degree include:

[0031] Obtain the demand of each original conflict node under the initial conflict conditions and the demand retained in the current negotiation result. Subtract the retained amount in the current negotiation result from the initial demand to obtain the node concession amount of the corresponding original conflict node.

[0032] The demand of the new conflict node is compared with the concession amount of each original conflict node. The smaller value is taken as the absorbable part of the original conflict node for the new conflict node. The absorbable parts of all original conflict nodes are summed to obtain the total absorbable amount. The total absorbable amount is used as the numerator, and the value corresponding to the total number of original conflict nodes is incremented by one. The sum is multiplied by the demand of the new conflict node, and the product is used as the denominator. The numerator is divided by the denominator to obtain the matching rate of the demand of the new conflict node.

[0033] Optionally, the calculation step of the historical concession fit degree further includes:

[0034] Determine the maximum and minimum values ​​of the absorbable portion of each original conflict node, calculate the difference between the two, divide the difference by the demand of the new conflict node to obtain the quotient, and then subtract the quotient from the value to obtain the smoothness of the fit distribution.

[0035] The coupling factor is obtained by multiplying the matching rate of the new conflict node's demand by the smoothness of the fit distribution and taking the square root.

[0036] Using the coupling factor as the numerator, and adding one to the absolute value of the difference between the matching rate of the new conflict node's demand and the smoothness of the fit distribution as the denominator, we divide the numerator by the denominator to obtain the historical concession fit degree between the current negotiation results of the new conflict node and the original conflict node.

[0037] Optionally, comparing the compatible value with the preset threshold may also include:

[0038] If the compatibility value is less than the preset threshold, calculate the compatibility value between the new conflict node and each historical negotiation result in reverse chronological order from the negotiation result trajectory until a historical negotiation result is found whose compatibility value is not less than the preset threshold. At this point, merge the corresponding historical negotiation result and the conflict condition of the new conflict node as a new negotiation initial state to continue subsequent negotiations.

[0039] If the compatibility value between the new conflict node and all historical negotiation results is less than the preset threshold, then all negotiation result trajectories are discarded directly, and a new negotiation initial state is reconstructed by combining the initial conflict conditions of the original conflict node and the conflict conditions of the new conflict node, and a new communication resolution process is started from scratch.

[0040] Communication and interaction continue based on the new initial negotiation state until the final conflict resolution result is generated and output.

[0041] The beneficial effects of this invention are:

[0042] This invention proposes a communication method for handling dynamic scheduling conflicts. By introducing a timestamp-based pre-judgment mechanism during multi-round communication, it can intelligently determine whether a new node is allowed to insert when the original node's negotiation resolution is nearing completion. This avoids the problem of frequent interruptions in the negotiation process caused by unlimited insertion, ensuring the stability and convergence of the conflict resolution process. At the same time, by combining compatibility value calculation and historical trajectory rollback retrieval, new nodes can be reasonably connected according to the negotiation progress of the original nodes, effectively reducing secondary or chain conflicts caused by missing context. Overall, this improves the efficiency and robustness of communication in resolving dynamic scheduling conflicts and reduces the risk of the system falling into a long-term stalemate during dynamic operation. Attached Figure Description

[0043] The invention will now be further described with reference to the accompanying drawings.

[0044] Figure 1 This is a flowchart of a communication method for handling dynamic scheduling conflicts. Detailed Implementation

[0045] The technical solutions of the embodiments of the present invention will be clearly and completely described below with reference to the accompanying drawings. Obviously, the described embodiments are only some embodiments of the present invention, and not all embodiments. Based on the embodiments of the present invention, all other embodiments obtained by those skilled in the art without creative effort are within the scope of protection of the present invention.

[0046] This invention provides a communication method for handling dynamic scheduling conflicts. See also... Figure 1 , Figure 1 A flowchart illustrating a communication method for handling dynamic scheduling conflicts, provided as an embodiment of the present invention. The method includes the following steps:

[0047] S1: Record each node that negotiates and resolves the current scheduling conflict as the original conflict node, and record the timestamp of each original conflict node when reporting the conflict condition, and calculate the base timestamp.

[0048] S2: The original conflicting nodes engage in multiple rounds of communication based on their respective conflict conditions, and obtain the negotiation result trajectory based on the results of the gradual negotiation and resolution.

[0049] S3: When a new conflict node appears, obtain the timestamp of its reported conflict conditions, and combine it with the baseline timestamp to determine whether the new conflict node is eligible to join the current negotiation;

[0050] S4: If a new conflicting node is eligible to join the current negotiation, calculate the compatibility value between the new conflicting node and the latest negotiation result, compare the compatibility value with a preset threshold, and if the compatibility value is not less than the preset threshold, directly merge the conflict condition of the new conflicting node with the current negotiation result to generate a new negotiation initial state. All nodes continue to communicate and negotiate based on the new negotiation initial state until the final conflict resolution result is generated and output.

[0051] Based on the communication method for handling dynamic scheduling conflicts provided by the embodiments of the present invention, by introducing a timestamp-based pre-judgment mechanism in the multi-round communication process, it is possible to intelligently determine whether a new node is allowed to insert when the original node's negotiation resolution is nearing completion. This avoids the problem of frequent interruptions in the negotiation process caused by infinite insertion, and ensures the stability and convergence of the conflict handling process. At the same time, by combining compatibility value calculation and historical trajectory rollback retrieval, the new node can be reasonably connected according to the negotiation progress of the original node, effectively reducing secondary conflicts or chain conflicts caused by missing context. Overall, it improves the efficiency and robustness of communication in resolving dynamic scheduling conflicts and reduces the risk of the system falling into a long-term stalemate during dynamic operation.

[0052] In one embodiment, S1: Each node that negotiates and resolves the current scheduling conflict is recorded as the original conflict node, and the timestamp of each original node when reporting the conflict condition is recorded, and the base timestamp is calculated.

[0053] In one implementation, the steps for calculating the base timestamp include:

[0054] Calculate the average timestamp of all original nodes when they reported the conflict conditions as the baseline timestamp.

[0055] It should be noted that the timestamps of the original conflict nodes when reporting conflict conditions are obtained as follows: when each original conflict node sends its scheduling conflict conditions to the scheduling center or relevant nodes through the communication link, the system automatically records the system time of message generation or reception at the same time as receiving the conflict condition, and uses this time as the timestamp corresponding to the original conflict node. This ensures that all timestamps are valid markers generated under a unified clock, and can truly reflect the order and timing characteristics of the conflict conditions reported by each original node.

[0056] It should be noted that the reason for using the average timestamp of all original nodes when reporting conflict conditions as the baseline timestamp in the above steps, instead of using the maximum, minimum, or median, is that the average can comprehensively reflect the overall reporting time sequence characteristics of the original conflicting nodes. This places the baseline timestamp at the "center" of all original nodes, avoiding bias towards any single node that is too early or too late. This allows for a fairer and more reasonable determination of the negotiation start time. For example, if the earliest timestamp is used as the baseline, any new node that arrives much later than the first node will be rejected, potentially leading to overly strict restrictions. If the latest timestamp is used as the baseline, most new nodes can enter the current negotiation, potentially causing unlimited insertions. If the median is used, it cannot guarantee representativeness when the number of nodes is small or unevenly distributed. The average, on the other hand, reflects the overall average state of all original nodes and stably reflects the collective characteristics when the number of nodes is large. Therefore, using the average to determine whether a new node can join not only avoids the influence of a few extreme nodes but also ensures that the dynamic scheduling negotiation process is neither too lenient nor too strict, thereby improving the stability and robustness of the negotiation.

[0057] In one embodiment, S2: The steps of obtaining the negotiation result trajectory based on the gradual negotiation resolution results by the original conflicting nodes engaging in multiple rounds of communication interaction based on their respective conflict conditions include:

[0058] All conflict information corresponding to the conflict conditions reported by each original conflict node is mapped into a unified conflict condition vector; the conflict information includes, but is not limited to, information such as resource requirements, time occupancy interval, and priority constraints.

[0059] Multiple rounds of interaction are performed between the original conflicting nodes according to the iterative communication protocol. The iterative communication protocol is used to trigger each node to broadcast its current condition vector and receive the condition vectors of other nodes in each interaction round.

[0060] After receiving condition vectors from other nodes, each node adaptively adjusts its own condition vector according to the conflict degree calculation function to achieve interaction in the current round; the adjustment includes, but is not limited to, shortening the time interval, reducing resource requirements, or adjusting priority parameters to reduce the intensity of conflict between nodes;

[0061] After each round of interaction, a corresponding temporary negotiation result is generated, and the temporary negotiation result is stored differentially with the negotiation result of the previous round. The differential storage results form a negotiation result trajectory in chronological order.

[0062] The latest temporary negotiation result in the negotiation result trajectory is marked as the current temporary consistent state for subsequent compatibility determination and trajectory rollback retrieval.

[0063] It should be noted that in step S2, the original conflicting nodes engage in multiple rounds of communication based on their respective conflict conditions. The specific process is as follows: First, the system parameterizes the conflict conditions reported by each original conflicting node, mapping them into a unified conflict condition vector. Conflict information includes, but is not limited to, resource requirements, time occupancy intervals, and priority constraints. For example, if node A requests the use of a device from 14:00 to 15:00 with a high priority, and node B requests the same device from 14:20 to 15:20 with a medium priority, the system will transform these requests into a condition vector containing four dimensions: "resource identifier, start time, end time, and priority," thereby ensuring that... The requirements of nodes in the same node have a unified format for subsequent comparison. Then, multiple rounds of interaction are carried out between the original conflicting nodes according to the iterative communication protocol. The iterative communication protocol stipulates that in each round of interaction, each node must broadcast its own condition vector and simultaneously receive the condition vectors of other nodes to ensure that all nodes can obtain the complete negotiation context at the same time. For example, in the first round, A and B each broadcast their conditions, and the system will ensure that both can receive the other's condition vector. After receiving the condition vectors of other nodes, each node will call the conflict degree calculation function to measure the conflict intensity. This function can be obtained by calculating the overlap ratio of time intervals, the degree of overlap of resource requirements, or the degree of priority contradiction, etc. For example, if the request times of A and B overlap by 40 minutes, the conflict intensity function might result in 0.67, indicating a high level of conflict. Based on this conflict intensity, each node will adaptively adjust its condition vector to reduce the conflict intensity. These adjustments include, but are not limited to, shortening the occupied time interval, reducing resource requirements, or adjusting priority parameters. For example, in the above example, A shortens its usage time to 14:00–14:40, and B shortens it to 14:40–15:20, thus reducing or even eliminating the conflict interval. After completing this round of interaction, the system will generate a corresponding temporary negotiation result and store it differentially with the negotiation result of the previous round. For example, in the previous round, A's request... If node A and node B both require 60 minutes, and in this round A adjusts their time to 40 minutes and B adjusts their time to 40 minutes, then the differential storage records the change of "−20 minutes / −20 minutes". The system records these differential results sequentially in chronological order, gradually forming a negotiation result trajectory. This trajectory completely records all intermediate states from the initial conflict conditions to the gradual resolution process. Finally, the system marks the latest temporary negotiation result in the trajectory as the current temporary consistent state for use in subsequent steps. For example, when a new node C joins, the compatibility index can be calculated directly based on this latest temporary consistent state, or, in the case of incompatibility, the system can roll back to a previous trajectory node and restart the negotiation. In this way, S2 not only achieves round-by-round resolution between the original conflicting nodes but also provides a contextual basis for the insertion of dynamic nodes, ensuring the continuity of the communication process and the traceability of the results.

[0064] It should be noted that conflict intensity calculation functions are typically designed to quantify the intensity of conflict between different nodes and output a value between 0 and 1. There are several possible settings. For example, a conflict intensity function based on time interval overlap is calculated by dividing the overlap length of the time intervals requested by two nodes by the total coverage interval length. If node A requests 14:00–15:00 and node B requests 14:20–15:20, with an overlap of 40 minutes and a total interval of 80 minutes, the conflict intensity is 0.5, indicating moderate conflict. Another approach is to define a conflict intensity function based on resource demand difference, calculated by dividing the excess of total demand by the available resources. If the system has 10 available transport vehicles, and node A needs 7 and node B needs 6, the total demand is 13 vehicles, exceeding the limit by 3 vehicles, resulting in a conflict intensity of 0.3, indicating resource scarcity but adjustability. Yet another approach is based on priority conflict intensity, where high-priority nodes and low-priority nodes... When nodes completely overlap in their demand intervals, a high conflict degree is directly assigned, such as 0.8, indicating a very severe conflict. In more complex scenarios, the above multiple sub-conflict degree functions can be weighted and combined to obtain a comprehensive conflict degree function, such as F = w1·Ftime + w2·Fres + w3·Fprio, where Ftime is the time interval overlap rate, Fres is the resource demand difference, and Fprio is the priority conflict degree. When the time overlap rate is 0.5, the resource excess is 0.3, and the priority conflict degree is 0.8, and the corresponding weights are set to w1 = 0.4, w2 = 0.3, and w3 = 0.3 respectively, the comprehensive conflict degree F = 0.53, indicating a relatively high conflict intensity, requiring node adjustment. The design of the entire conflict degree calculation function enables the system to dynamically determine the adjustment range based on the conflict intensity in each round of communication interaction, thereby gradually reducing the conflict and converging to a temporary consistent state.

[0065] It should be noted that the reason for using differential storage of the temporary negotiation result and the previous round's negotiation result in step S2, and recording the differential storage results sequentially in chronological order to form a negotiation result trajectory, instead of simply using overwriting or only retaining the final result, is that differential storage can fully reflect the evolution path of the condition vectors of each node during the conflict resolution process. The trajectory formed in chronological order not only preserves the dynamism and continuity of the negotiation, but also serves as the basis for compatibility judgment and trajectory rollback retrieval when new nodes are added later. If only the final result is retained, intermediate states are lost, making it impossible to determine whether a new node is more compatible with a certain intermediate state, which may lead to a one-size-fits-all global recalculation. Differential trajectories can accurately locate the nearest compatible point, avoiding the overturning of existing results. They also provide traceability and transparency to the system, making the conflict resolution process more stable, flexible, and interpretable. For example, in the process of node A and node B negotiating multiple rounds to gradually shorten the usage interval, each round of change is recorded as a differential segment. If a new node C is added and cannot be compatible with the latest result, the system can backtrack along the trajectory to the second or third round of results, quickly find a compatible state, and continue negotiating. This ensures that existing negotiation results are not easily discarded and reduces the computational burden of renegotiation. Therefore, differential storage, which forms the negotiation result trajectory in chronological order, is a more efficient and robust implementation method.

[0066] In one embodiment, S3: When a new conflicting node appears, obtain the timestamp attached to the conflict condition it reported, and combine it with the base timestamp to determine whether the new conflicting node is eligible to join the current negotiation.

[0067] In one implementation, the steps for determining whether a new conflicting node is eligible to join the current negotiation, based on a reference timestamp, include:

[0068] Calculate the difference between the timestamp of the new conflict node reporting the conflict condition and the base timestamp, and compare the difference with a preset difference threshold. If the difference is less than the preset difference threshold, the new conflict node is eligible to join the current negotiation and negotiate with the original conflict node to resolve the conflict.

[0069] If the difference is not less than the preset difference threshold, the new conflict node is not eligible to join the current negotiation; the insertion request of the new conflict node is directly blocked, the final negotiation result of the original conflict node is output first, and then a new resolution process is started to handle the scheduling conflict of the new conflict node.

[0070] It should be noted that when a new conflicting node appears, the system first obtains the timestamp accompanying the node's report of its scheduling conflict conditions. This timestamp is then compared with a baseline timestamp calculated from the timestamps reported by all the original conflicting nodes to determine if the new node is eligible to join the ongoing negotiation process. The baseline timestamp is the average of the timestamps of all the original conflicting nodes, reflecting the overall start time of the original negotiation process. Next, the difference between the new conflicting node's timestamp and the baseline timestamp is calculated and compared with a preset difference threshold. If the difference is less than the preset threshold, it indicates that the new node's conflict condition reporting time is sufficiently close to the start time of the original negotiation, and it is allowed to join the original node's negotiation resolution process. This ensures that the new node can resolve dynamic scheduling conflicts with the original nodes without disrupting the stability of the original process. If the difference is greater than or equal to the preset difference threshold, the new node is considered to have joined too late. Unsolicited insertions could disrupt the existing negotiation process repeatedly or even lead to an infinite number of insertions. Therefore, insertion requests are blocked. The final negotiation result already obtained by the original conflicting node is output first, and then a new resolution process is started based on this result to handle the scheduling conflict of the new node. This ensures the stability of the original negotiation and avoids the new node from disrupting the negotiation progress indefinitely. For example, suppose node A and node B report conflict conditions at 10:00, and the base timestamp is 10:00:30. If node C reports at 10:01:00, the difference is 30 seconds, and the preset threshold is 60 seconds. In this case, node C can directly join the current A / B negotiation to continue the resolution. However, if node D reports at 10:05:00, the difference is 4 minutes and 30 seconds, which exceeds the threshold. In this case, direct insertion is blocked. The final results of A, B, and C are output first, and then a new resolution process is started separately to handle the conflict of D. This avoids long-term stalemate and instability in the negotiation process.

[0071] In one embodiment, S4: If a new conflicting node is eligible to join the current negotiation, calculate the compatibility value between the new conflicting node and the latest negotiation result, compare the compatibility value with a preset threshold, and if the compatibility value is not less than the preset threshold, directly merge the conflict condition of the new conflicting node with the current negotiation result to generate a new negotiation initial state. All nodes continue to communicate and negotiate based on the new negotiation initial state until the final conflict resolution result is generated and output.

[0072] Specifically, in one implementation, the steps for calculating the compatibility value between the new conflicting node and the latest negotiation result include:

[0073] Calculate the complementary coupling degree and historical concession fit degree between the new conflict node and the latest negotiation result. Establish a two-dimensional coordinate system with the complementary coupling degree and historical concession fit degree, and map the complementary coupling degree and historical concession fit degree into the two-dimensional coordinate system. The coordinate points correspond to the complementary coupling degree and historical concession fit degree, respectively.

[0074] Calculate the distance from the coordinate point in the two-dimensional coordinate system to the origin, and use the distance as the compatibility value between the new conflict node and the latest negotiation result.

[0075] In one embodiment, the steps for calculating the complementary coupling degree include:

[0076] The time interval corresponding to the resource demand of a new conflicting node is defined as the new node time interval. The set of all unallocated time segments in the current negotiation results is obtained and denoted as the current available time slice set. For each time slice in the current available time slice set, its start and end times are obtained and compared with the new node time interval. The sum of the time intersection lengths between the new node time interval and each available time slice is calculated. The sum of the time intersection lengths is then divided by the total duration of the new node time interval to obtain the resource time interleaving index. When the new node time interval has no intersection with any time slice, the interleaving length is considered to be zero. The final resource time interleaving index is a dimensionless quantity ranging from zero to one, representing the degree of matching of the new node's demand within the current scheduling time slot.

[0077] Extract the resource demand of the new node and the remaining resources that can be allocated in the current negotiation result, respectively, and use the smaller one as the numerator and the larger one as the denominator. The ratio of the two is used as the resource demand symmetry rate. The resource demand symmetry rate ranges from zero to one and is used to measure whether the resource request of the new node has a strong symmetry with the current remaining resources. The closer it is to one, the more symmetrical it is.

[0078] Obtain the duration of the new node's task and the length of the longest available time slice in the current set of available time slices. Take the absolute value of the difference between the two and divide it by the sum of the two to get the task duration difference rate. Then subtract the task duration difference rate from the value to get the scheduling elasticity ratio. The scheduling elasticity ratio reflects whether the task length of the new node has a strong scalability match with the longest available time slice. The value ranges from zero to one. The larger the value, the higher the matching degree.

[0079] The combined evaluation value for time and resource is obtained by multiplying the resource time staggered index and the resource demand symmetry rate by their respective square roots. This combined evaluation value is then multiplied by the scheduling elasticity ratio to obtain the coupling enhancement factor. Simultaneously, the difference between the resource time staggered index and the resource demand symmetry rate is calculated, and its absolute value is incremented by one to obtain the normalized penalty factor. Finally, the coupling enhancement factor is divided by the normalized penalty factor to obtain the complementary coupling degree between the new node and the original conflicting node's current negotiation result. The complementary coupling degree is a dimensionless quantity between zero and one; a larger value indicates that the new node's conditions can better fill the resource and time gaps in the current negotiation result, resulting in higher compatibility.

[0080] It should be noted that the above steps are illustrated with an example. For instance, in a factory equipment scheduling scenario, the original conflicting nodes A and B have undergone multiple rounds of communication negotiation, resulting in a current negotiation outcome: the available time slots for equipment X are divided into two consecutive allocatable intervals: 13:30-14:30 and 15:00-16:00, with remaining resources of 6 processing units. At this point, a new conflicting node C reports a scheduling request: it wants to use equipment X from 14:00 to 15:00 for 60 minutes and requires 4 processing units. To determine whether C can directly join the current negotiation outcome of the original conflicting nodes A and B, their complementary coupling degree needs to be calculated. First, analyze the time. The new node C's demand interval is from 2 PM to 3 PM, which overlaps with the first available segment (1:30 PM to 2:30 PM) in the current negotiation result by 30 minutes, but does not overlap with the second available segment (3 PM to 4 PM). Therefore, the total intersection time is 30 minutes. Dividing this by C's total demand time of 60 minutes, we get a resource time overlap index of 0.5, indicating that only half of the available time period formed by the negotiation result of the original conflicting nodes A and B can be covered. Next, compare the resources. The new node C needs 4 processing units, while the remaining capacity in the negotiation result is 6 units. Therefore, the resource demand symmetry rate is 4 divided by 6, which equals 0.667, indicating that C's resource request is relatively well matched with the remaining resources in terms of quantity. Then, calculate the elasticity matching degree of task duration. The new node C's demand duration is 60 minutes, and the longest available segment in the negotiation result is also 60 minutes. The two durations are completely consistent, and the difference is zero. Dividing by the sum... After 120 minutes, the result is zero. Subtracting this value from one yields a scheduling elasticity ratio of 1, indicating that the task duration of C perfectly matches the longest available time segment of the original negotiation result. Finally, multiplying the time staggered index of 0.5 by the resource demand symmetry ratio of 0.667 and then taking the square root gives a combined evaluation value of 0.577. Multiplying this by the scheduling elasticity ratio of 1 yields a coupling enhancement factor of 0.577. Simultaneously, the difference between the time staggered index and the resource symmetry ratio is calculated to be 0.167. Adding one gives a normalized penalty factor of 1.167. Dividing the coupling enhancement factor by the normalized penalty factor yields a complementary coupling degree of 0.494 between the new node C and the original conflicting nodes A and B in the current negotiation result. This value is between zero and one, indicating that C can complement the original negotiation result to a certain extent in terms of both time and resources, and has the potential to directly integrate into the existing negotiation process. Thus, in subsequent communication negotiations, it can smoothly resolve conflicts with A and B to obtain a final consistent scheduling scheme.

[0081] It should be noted that the data involved in the calculation of complementary coupling degree is automatically acquired by the dynamic scheduling system during operation: the resource requirements and time interval of the new conflicting node are directly collected from the parameters attached to the node when reporting the scheduling request; the available time segment and remaining allocable resources in the current negotiation result of the original conflicting node are generated and stored in real time by the system when performing negotiation trajectory recording and state maintenance; and the task duration is calculated from the start and end times of the time interval reported by the new conflicting node, and the duration of the longest available segment in the current negotiation result is determined by the system through traversing and calculating in the set of available time slices. Therefore, all the data required for the entire calculation comes from the node request parameters and the negotiation result records inside the system, ensuring the accuracy and real-time nature of the data.

[0082] It should be noted that complementary coupling is an indicator used to measure the degree of complementary coordination between the scheduling request of a new conflicting node and the current negotiation result of the original conflicting node in terms of resources, time, and task structure. Its value ranges from 0 to 1. The closer it is to 1, the more likely the addition of a new node is to not generate new conflicts or even bring room for scheduling optimization, and therefore the more "compatible" it is. The essence of complementary coupling is to identify "gap-filling" scheduling opportunities, that is, the resources or time required by the new node exactly match the unused or vacant parts of the current negotiation result. For example, in a scheduling scenario, after negotiation, the original conflicting nodes have a free time slot from 2 PM to 4 PM and 2 units of free resources. A new conflicting node, however, only needs one hour from 2:30 PM to 3:30 PM and requests 2 units of resources. In this case, its time slot highly overlaps with the available time slot (high resource time overlap index), its resource request is exactly the same as the remaining resources (high resource symmetry rate), and its task duration is close to the available time slice (high elasticity ratio). Therefore, the complementary coupling degree calculated from these three factors will be very high. This indicates that the addition of the new node will not only not disrupt the existing scheduling balance but will also improve overall resource utilization efficiency and reduce fragmented idle time. Therefore, in this situation, there is no need to overturn the original result. The new node's conditions can be directly integrated into the current negotiation result and used as the new initial state for subsequent iterative communication interactions. This can significantly reduce negotiation reconstruction costs, improve negotiation efficiency, and reduce the communication burden caused by redundant calculations and information broadcasting. Conversely, if the complementary coupling degree is low, it indicates that there is significant tension between the new node and the current scheduling state. Hasty integration may disrupt the original balance, requiring a restart of the entire negotiation process.

[0083] It should be noted that the reason for using the above method to calculate the complementary coupling degree, rather than a simple weighted summation or relying on only a single indicator, is that this calculation method can comprehensively, dynamically, and objectively reflect the actual degree of fit between the current negotiation results of the new conflict node and the original conflict node in multiple dimensions. Specifically, it first calculates the resource time interleaving index from the perspective of time coverage to ensure that the new node's demand can be truly carried by the time slice of the existing results, rather than just being logically redundant; secondly, it calculates the resource demand symmetry rate from the perspective of resources to ensure that the new node's request will not over-consume or completely deviate from the current remaining resources, thereby avoiding inflated complementarity judgments; thirdly, it introduces the task duration elasticity ratio to examine the scaling matching degree between the new node's task length and the available maximum time slice. This dimension makes the system not only focus on whether there is an intersection, but also consider whether there is the feasibility of sustainable scheduling; finally, in the synthesis stage, nonlinear operations such as geometric square root and fractional normalization are used to organically combine the three dimensions of time, resources, and task duration, while suppressing the situation where a single dimension is too high or the difference is too large, ensuring the stability and interpretability of the results. Compared to conventional linear superposition, this approach avoids the uncertainty of manually set weights, preventing overall judgment distortion due to outliers in a single dimension. It also accurately reflects whether a new node can naturally integrate into the existing scheduling scheme without disrupting the current negotiation balance, thus better meeting the practical engineering needs of dynamic scheduling conflict resolution. For example, if only the time overlap ratio is used as a metric, a high complementarity might still be given even with insufficient resources or completely mismatched task durations, leading to incorrect judgments. The complementary coupling degree calculated using the above method, however, can accurately filter out such superficial fits, outputting more scientific and reliable results. Therefore, it can effectively reduce secondary conflicts and misjudgments in communication negotiation.

[0084] In one embodiment, the steps for calculating the historical concession fit include:

[0085] Obtain the demand of each original conflict node under the initial conflict conditions and the demand retained in the current negotiation result. Subtract the retained amount in the current negotiation result from the initial demand to obtain the node concession amount of the corresponding original conflict node.

[0086] The demand of the new conflict node is compared with the concession amount of each original conflict node. The smaller value is taken as the absorbable part of the original conflict node for the new conflict node. The absorbable parts of all original conflict nodes are summed to obtain the total absorbable amount. The total absorbable amount is used as the numerator. The value corresponding to the total number of original conflict nodes is incremented by one. The sum is multiplied by the demand of the new conflict node. The product is used as the denominator. The numerator is divided by the denominator to obtain the matching rate of the demand of the new conflict node.

[0087] Determine the maximum and minimum values ​​of the absorbable portion of each original conflict node, calculate the difference between the two, divide the difference by the demand of the new conflict node to obtain the quotient, and then subtract the quotient from the value to obtain the smoothness of the fit distribution.

[0088] The coupling factor is obtained by multiplying the matching rate of the new conflict node's demand by the smoothness of the fit distribution and taking the square root.

[0089] Using the coupling factor as the numerator, and adding one to the absolute value of the difference between the matching rate of the new conflict node's demand and the smoothness of the fit distribution as the denominator, we divide the numerator by the denominator to obtain the historical concession fit degree between the new conflict node and the current negotiation result of the original conflict node. Here, the historical concession fit degree is a dimensionless quantity between zero and one. The larger the value, the more the new conflict node's demand can be absorbed by the concession space already made by the original conflict node in the negotiation process, and the higher its compatibility with the current negotiation result.

[0090] It should be noted that in the calculation of historical concession fit, demand can be expressed not only as the amount of resources requested by a node in scheduling, such as the number of processing units, storage capacity, and bandwidth, but also as the duration a node occupies a certain time interval, such as the number of hours or minutes required to continuously use the equipment. In some complex scenarios, demand can even be a combined measure of resources and time, such as "requiring 3 processing units for 2 hours." During calculation, these can be uniformly converted into standardized numerical forms for comparison, thus ensuring the comparability between different types of demands. For example, in production workshop scheduling, if node A initially reports a demand of "using equipment X for two hours," the demand is recorded as 2; if node B reports a demand of "allocating 4 units of storage resources," the demand is recorded as 4. When calculating historical concession fit, the system can directly call these demand parameters to ensure that whether a new node's demand falls within the concession space of the original node can be accurately measured. Furthermore, the initial demand is directly recorded by the parameters when the node first reports the conflict conditions; the retention amount of each original conflicting node in the current negotiation result is extracted in real time from the latest negotiation state formed after multiple rounds of communication interaction; the demand of a new conflicting node is obtained from the conflict conditions submitted by the node with the message when joining the negotiation; the total number of original conflicting nodes is automatically counted by the system when managing negotiation participants; the calculation of the absorbable portion depends on the comparison result of the above concession amount and the demand of the new node, and the maximum and minimum values ​​are obtained by the system when traversing the absorbable portion; therefore, the data source of the entire calculation process is clear, unified and can be called in real time, without the need to introduce external unknown factors, ensuring the accuracy and feasibility of historical concession fit calculation.

[0091] It should be noted that in a specific scenario of factory equipment scheduling, equipment X has multiple task requests. Node A initially requested to use the equipment continuously for 2 hours from 13:00 to 15:00, but after multiple rounds of negotiation, it conceded and ultimately only reserved 1 hour from 13:00 to 14:00. Therefore, A's concession was 1 hour. Node B initially requested to use the equipment continuously for 2 hours from 14:00 to 16:00, but after negotiation, it backed down and ultimately only reserved 1 hour from 15:00 to 16:00. Therefore, B's concession was 1 hour. Node C initially requested... The equipment was used continuously for 2.5 hours from 12:00 to 14:30. After negotiation, only 1.5 hours (12:00–13:30) were reserved. Therefore, C's concession was 1 hour. At this point, the concessions of the three original conflicting nodes were 1 hour, 1 hour, and 1 hour respectively, with a maximum of 1 hour. Then, a new node D submitted a request to use the equipment for 1 hour from 14:00 to 15:00. The historical concession fit was calculated. First, the new node's demand of 1 hour was compared with the concessions of each node, and the smaller value was taken as the absorbable portion, resulting in the concessions of A, B, and C. The absorbable portion is 1 hour for each node, totaling 3 hours. The matching rate is then calculated by taking the total absorbable amount (3 hours) as the numerator, adding one to the original total number of conflicting nodes (3) to get 4, and multiplying this by the new node's demand (1 hour) to get a denominator of 4 hours. The final matching rate is 3 / 4, or 0.75. Next, the maximum and minimum values ​​of each absorbable portion are determined; both are 1 hour, with a difference of 0. Dividing this by the new node's demand (1 hour) yields a quotient of 0. Subtracting the quotient from 1 gives a smoothness of fit distribution of 1, indicating that the new node's demand can be evenly absorbed by the concessions of multiple nodes. Then... Multiplying the matching rate of 0.75 by the smoothness of the fit distribution (1) and taking the square root yields a coupling factor of approximately 0.866. Finally, using this coupling factor as the numerator, adding one to the absolute value of the difference between the matching rate and the smoothness (0.25) gives a denominator of 1.25. Dividing the numerator by the denominator yields a historical concession fit of approximately 0.693, which is between zero and one and close to 0.7. This indicates that most of the demand of the new node D can be effectively absorbed by the concession spaces of A, B, and C, and the absorption distribution is balanced, preventing new serious conflicts. Therefore, it has high compatibility with the current negotiation results.

[0092] It's important to note that historical concession fit refers to the degree of overlap between the demand or demand range of a new conflict node and the concession space released by the original conflict node as it evolves from the initial conflict conditions to the current negotiation result during the dynamic scheduling conflict resolution process. It's an indicator reflecting whether a new node can be absorbed by the historical compromises of older nodes, used to measure whether a new conflict node's entry into the negotiation will disrupt the original balance or seamlessly integrate into the existing outcome. When the historical concession fit is high, it indicates that the new node's demand is almost entirely within the resource or time range that the original node has relinquished. This means its entry doesn't require changing the compromise boundaries already reached by the original nodes, but rather utilizes the remaining space gradually released during the negotiation process. Therefore, its compatibility with the current negotiation result is extremely high, and its conflict conditions can be directly integrated with the latest negotiation result as a new initial negotiation state. All nodes can then continue subsequent communication and interaction based on this state. This avoids overturning the original negotiation results and renegotiating, while ensuring the smooth convergence and output of the final result. For example, in factory equipment scheduling, node A initially requests two hours of equipment, ultimately reserving one hour and releasing one hour as a concession. Node B initially requests six units of resources, ultimately reserving four and releasing two units. If a new node C only needs one hour of equipment and two units of resources, its demand falls entirely within the concession margins of A and B, with a fit close to 1. This means it can be absorbed without causing new conflicts, and its conditions can be directly integrated into the current outcome for rapid progress. Conversely, if C's demand exceeds the space released by A and B, it will squeeze the bottom line of the existing nodes, resulting in a lower fit. Direct integration in this case would disrupt the original balance, requiring a large-scale re-initiation of negotiation. This is precisely why a higher historical concession fit indicates higher compatibility and allows for direct integration of new nodes. A large value means the new node's demand is precisely accommodated within the concession space of the existing negotiation trajectory, preventing new conflicts and ensuring efficient and stable communication negotiation.

[0093] It's important to note that the advantage of calculating historical concession fit using the above method lies in its ability to truly reflect the structural relationship between the new conflict node and the original conflict node's "negotiation evolution history," rather than merely a superficial match based on static resource reserves or time overlap. Traditional compatibility assessment methods often only consider "whether the new node's needs can still be met," ignoring whether these remaining resources were actively released by the original conflict node or whether they possess potential scheduling structural significance. The above method, by quantifying the "concession amount" of the original conflict node from the initial conflict conditions to the current negotiation result, and further constructing indicators such as "absorbable portion," "matching rate," and "fit distribution smoothness," can accurately determine whether the new node's needs precisely fill the gaps formed in the natural evolution of the existing conflict system. This not only helps identify nodes that "merge naturally" but also avoids forcibly including nodes with reasonable needs but inappropriate positions, thus preventing the disruption of the original negotiation order. Furthermore, this method avoids using weighted summation and unknown factors, instead employing normalization, proportional comparison, and combined compression to process multi-layered structural information, ensuring the indicators themselves possess comparability, scale consistency, and computational transparency. Furthermore, by specifically calculating the "smoothness of the fit distribution," the ability to judge whether the absorption structure is balanced is further enhanced, avoiding potential new conflicts caused by the over-absorption of certain nodes. Therefore, this calculation method not only possesses rigorous structural logic but also offers greater engineering interpretability and traceability of scheduling behavior in practical scheduling systems, making it highly suitable for complex systems requiring dynamic game theory and local integration, such as multi-node collaborative scheduling and distributed task competition and cooperation.

[0094] In one embodiment, comparing the compatible value with the preset threshold further includes:

[0095] If the compatibility value is less than the preset threshold, calculate the compatibility value between the new conflict node and each historical negotiation result in reverse chronological order from the negotiation result trajectory until a historical negotiation result is found whose compatibility value is not less than the preset threshold. At this point, merge the corresponding historical negotiation result and the conflict condition of the new conflict node as a new negotiation initial state to continue subsequent negotiations.

[0096] If the compatibility value between the new conflict node and all historical negotiation results is less than the preset threshold, then all negotiation result trajectories are discarded directly, and a new negotiation initial state is reconstructed by combining the initial conflict conditions of the original conflict node and the conflict conditions of the new conflict node, and a new communication resolution process is started from scratch.

[0097] Communication and interaction continue based on the new initial negotiation state until the final conflict resolution result is generated and output.

[0098] It should be noted that the compatibility value between the new conflicting node and the latest negotiation result is calculated. If the compatibility value is greater than or equal to a preset threshold, it means that the new node's needs can be absorbed by the current negotiation result. For example, if the original conflicting node A initially needed 10 computing units, it agreed to reduce this to 8 units in multiple rounds of negotiation, and node B initially needed 6 units, it was eventually reduced to 5 units. The latest negotiation result is that A uses 8 units, B uses 5 units, and there are 2 units remaining. If the new node C needs 2 units, after calculating the complementary coupling degree and historical concession fit, its compatibility value is greater than the threshold, indicating that it can completely fill the remaining space. Therefore, C's needs are directly integrated into the current result to generate a new initial negotiation state, and A, B, and C can continue to communicate to obtain the final result. If the compatibility value is less than the preset threshold, it means that C's needs are not fully compatible with the current negotiation result. If the previous results differ significantly, direct merging would disrupt the existing balance. In this case, instead of rashly overturning all results, the compatibility values ​​of historical results are retrieved one by one from the negotiation result trajectory in reverse chronological order. For example, in an earlier stage, A retained 9 units and B retained 5 units, with a trajectory reserve of 3 units. If C needs 3 units, and the compatibility value with the result of that stage is greater than the threshold, then the historical result is merged with C's conditions to generate a new initial negotiation state, and all nodes continue to negotiate. If C's requirement is 10 units, it cannot be absorbed in any historical trajectory stage, and the calculated compatibility value is always lower than the threshold. In this case, all negotiation result trajectories are discarded, and new initial conditions are generated with A's initial 10 units, B's initial 6 units, and C's 10 units, starting a new round of negotiation from scratch.

[0099] It's important to note that the reason for using reverse backtracking instead of directly overturning all negotiation results when the compatibility value is below the threshold is that reverse backtracking can preserve as much of the consensus already formed by the original conflicting nodes in previous rounds of communication as possible, reducing the overhead of system recalculation and communication. At the same time, prioritizing the retrieval of historical negotiation results closest to the current state ensures that the new node's needs are absorbed with minimal adjustments, avoiding excessive rollback that would require nodes to make large concessions again, thus maintaining the continuity and stability of the negotiation. For example, if A and B reach a result after five rounds of negotiation, and the new node C cannot be absorbed in the latest result, but the remaining capacity released by A and B in the third round can meet C's needs, then reverse backtracking directly locates the third round. The conditions of C can be incorporated without going through the first two rounds of negotiation again, which saves communication costs and reduces the risk of repeated games. Only when the new node's needs cannot be compatible throughout the entire historical trajectory should all negotiation results be completely discarded and the process restarted from the initial conditions. This is because at this point, no intermediate state can support the new node's conditions, and forcibly absorbing them will only lead to the repeated destruction of existing consensus, thus causing the system to fall into a deadlock. Therefore, although the cost of complete discarding is high, it can ensure that the negotiation restarts from a fair starting point, thereby avoiding deadlock. This strategy of "prioritizing preservation, gradually backtracking, and finally resetting" ensures that the negotiation can continue efficiently in most scenarios, and only in extreme cases is a complete reconstruction carried out, balancing efficiency and robustness.

[0100] The foregoing has provided a detailed description of one embodiment of the present invention, but this description is merely a preferred embodiment and should not be construed as limiting the scope of the invention. All equivalent variations and modifications made within the scope of the claims of this invention should still fall within the patent coverage of this invention.

Claims

1. A communication method for handling dynamic scheduling conflicts, characterized in that, Includes the following steps: Each node that resolves the current scheduling conflict through negotiation is recorded as the original conflict node, and the timestamp of each original conflict node when reporting the conflict condition is recorded, and the base timestamp is calculated. The original conflicting nodes engage in multiple rounds of communication based on their respective conflict conditions, and the negotiation result trajectory is obtained based on the results of the gradual negotiation and resolution. When a new conflict node appears, obtain the timestamp of its reported conflict conditions, and combine it with the baseline timestamp to determine whether the new conflict node is eligible to join the current negotiation. If a new conflicting node is eligible to join the current negotiation, the compatibility value between the new conflicting node and the latest negotiation result is calculated. The compatibility value is compared with a preset threshold. If the compatibility value is not less than the preset threshold, the conflict condition of the new conflicting node is directly merged with the current negotiation result to generate a new negotiation initial state. All nodes continue to communicate and negotiate based on the new negotiation initial state until the final conflict resolution result is generated and output. If the compatibility value is less than the preset threshold, calculate the compatibility value between the new conflict node and each historical negotiation result in reverse chronological order from the negotiation result trajectory until a historical negotiation result is found whose compatibility value is not less than the preset threshold. At this point, merge the corresponding historical negotiation result and the conflict condition of the new conflict node as a new negotiation initial state to continue subsequent negotiations. If the compatibility value between the new conflict node and all historical negotiation results is less than the preset threshold, then all negotiation result trajectories are discarded directly, and a new negotiation initial state is reconstructed by combining the initial conflict conditions of the original conflict node and the conflict conditions of the new conflict node, and a new communication resolution process is started from scratch. Communication and interaction continue based on the new initial negotiation state until the final conflict resolution result is generated and output.

2. The communication method for handling dynamic scheduling conflicts according to claim 1, characterized in that, The steps for calculating the base timestamp include: Calculate the average timestamp of all original nodes when they reported the conflict conditions as the baseline timestamp.

3. The communication method for handling dynamic scheduling conflicts according to claim 1, characterized in that, The original conflicting nodes engage in multiple rounds of communication based on their respective conflict conditions. The steps to obtain the negotiation result trajectory based on the step-by-step negotiation resolution results include: Map all conflict information corresponding to the conflict conditions reported by each original conflict node into a unified conflict condition vector. Multiple rounds of interaction are performed between the original conflicting nodes according to the iterative communication protocol. The iterative communication protocol is used to trigger each node to broadcast its current condition vector and receive the condition vectors of other nodes in each interaction round. After receiving condition vectors from other nodes, each node adaptively adjusts its own condition vector according to the conflict degree calculation function to achieve interaction in the current round. After each round of interaction, a corresponding temporary negotiation result is generated, and the temporary negotiation result is stored differentially with the negotiation result of the previous round. The differential storage results form a negotiation result trajectory in chronological order.

4. The communication method for handling dynamic scheduling conflicts according to claim 1, characterized in that, The steps for determining whether a new conflicting node is eligible to join the current negotiation based on the baseline timestamp include: Calculate the difference between the timestamp of the new conflict node reporting the conflict condition and the base timestamp, and compare the difference with a preset difference threshold. If the difference is less than the preset difference threshold, the new conflict node is eligible to join the current negotiation and negotiate with the original conflict node to resolve the conflict. If the difference is not less than the preset difference threshold, the new conflict node is not eligible to join the current negotiation; the insertion request of the new conflict node is directly blocked, the final negotiation result of the original conflict node is output first, and then a new resolution process is started to handle the scheduling conflict of the new conflict node.

5. A communication method for handling dynamic scheduling conflicts according to claim 1, characterized in that, The steps for calculating the compatibility value between the new conflicting node and the latest negotiation result include: Calculate the complementary coupling degree and historical concession fit degree between the new conflict node and the latest negotiation result. Establish a two-dimensional coordinate system with the complementary coupling degree and historical concession fit degree, and map the complementary coupling degree and historical concession fit degree into the two-dimensional coordinate system. The coordinate points correspond to the complementary coupling degree and historical concession fit degree, respectively. Calculate the distance from the coordinate point in the two-dimensional coordinate system to the origin, and use the distance as the compatibility value between the new conflict node and the latest negotiation result.

6. A communication method for handling dynamic scheduling conflicts according to claim 5, characterized in that, The steps for calculating the complementary coupling degree include: Define the time interval corresponding to the resource demand of the new conflict node as the new node time interval. Obtain the set of all unallocated time intervals in the current negotiation results, and denote it as the current available time slice set. For each time slice in the current available time slice set, obtain its start time and end time, and compare them with the new node time interval. Calculate the sum of the time intersection lengths between the new node time interval and each available time slice. Then divide the sum of the time intersection lengths by the total duration of the new node time interval to obtain the resource time interleaving index. Extract the resource demand of the new node and the remaining resources that can be allocated in the current negotiation result, respectively, and use the smaller one as the numerator and the larger one as the denominator. The resulting ratio is used as the resource demand symmetry rate.

7. A communication method for handling dynamic scheduling conflicts according to claim 6, characterized in that, The calculation steps for the complementary coupling degree also include: Get the duration of the new node task and the length of the longest time slice in the current available time slice set. Take the absolute value of the difference between the two and divide it by the sum of the two to get the task duration difference rate. Then subtract the task duration difference rate from the value to get the scheduling elasticity ratio. The combined evaluation value of time and resource is obtained by multiplying the resource time staggered index and the resource demand symmetry rate by their respective square roots; then, the combined evaluation value is multiplied by the scheduling elasticity ratio to obtain the coupling enhancement factor. Calculate the difference between the resource time stagger index and the resource demand symmetry rate and take the absolute value. Add one to the result to obtain the normalized penalty factor. Divide the coupling enhancement factor by the normalized penalty factor to finally obtain the complementary coupling degree value between the new node and the original conflicting node in the current negotiation result.

8. A communication method for handling dynamic scheduling conflicts according to claim 5, characterized in that, The calculation steps for the historical concession fit include: Obtain the demand of each original conflict node under the initial conflict conditions and the demand retained in the current negotiation result. Subtract the retained amount in the current negotiation result from the initial demand to obtain the node concession amount of the corresponding original conflict node. The demand of the new conflict node is compared with the concession amount of each original conflict node. The smaller value is taken as the absorbable part of the original conflict node for the new conflict node. The absorbable parts of all original conflict nodes are summed to obtain the total absorbable amount. The total absorbable amount is used as the numerator, and the value corresponding to the total number of original conflict nodes is incremented by one. The sum is multiplied by the demand of the new conflict node, and the product is used as the denominator. The numerator is divided by the denominator to obtain the matching rate of the demand of the new conflict node.

9. A communication method for handling dynamic scheduling conflicts according to claim 8, characterized in that, The calculation steps for the historical concession fit also include: Determine the maximum and minimum values ​​of the absorbable portion of each original conflict node, calculate the difference between the two, divide the difference by the demand of the new conflict node to obtain the quotient, and then subtract the quotient from the value to obtain the smoothness of the fit distribution. The coupling factor is obtained by multiplying the matching rate of the new conflict node's demand by the smoothness of the fit distribution and taking the square root. Using the coupling factor as the numerator, and adding one to the absolute value of the difference between the matching rate of the new conflict node's demand and the smoothness of the fit distribution as the denominator, we divide the numerator by the denominator to obtain the historical concession fit degree between the current negotiation results of the new conflict node and the original conflict node.

Images