Decentralized Task Assignment via Local Autonomy

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Existing methods for task assignment and prioritization in decentralized execution environments with uncertain task durations and limited central control struggle to ensure timely completion of tasks due to uncertainty in task durations, agent availability, and task dependencies, especially in multi-national and remote-work settings.

Innovation Solution

A method and system that utilize a processor to receive inputs on tasks, agents, goals, and priority levels, determining qualification and availability functions, and applying algorithms like Tabu stochastic search and Monte Carlo Tree Search to calculate assignment and prioritization functions, considering preemption costs and importance weights, to optimize task distribution and completion within deadlines.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Reliability

If centralized oversight is used to monitor agents for dynamically modifying plans, then dynamic controllability is improved, but device complexity and operational overhead increase significantly

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvedynamic controllabilityVSAvoidcentral oversight complexity

Core Design Contradiction:

ReliabilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

Agents are equipped with local decision-making capabilities to autonomously determine task preemption and resumption without requiring constant central oversight. The system enables self-service through decentralized control where agents independently manage their task execution based on local conditions and pre-established priorities.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #25Self-service

Solution Approach 2:

The patent implements local quality by allowing different agents to have different levels of autonomy and decision-making authority based on their specific roles and capabilities. Each agent operates with localized control for task management while maintaining coordination with the overall system goals, reducing the need for uniform centralized monitoring.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #3Local quality

2Ease of operation

If tasks are assigned with fixed priorities, then ease of operation is improved, but adaptability to changing conditions and task dependencies deteriorates

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvetask assignment simplicityVSAvoidtask prioritization flexibility

Core Design Contradiction:

Ease of operationVSAdaptability or versatility

Solution Approach 1:

The patent implements dynamic prioritization where task priorities are not fixed but can change based on real-time conditions, task dependencies, and agent availability. The system dynamically adjusts task priorities during execution to optimize overall system performance while maintaining relatively simple operational procedures through automated priority management.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #15Dynamics

Solution Approach 2:

The system incorporates feedback mechanisms where agents report task progress and status changes to the coordination system, which then adjusts priorities based on this feedback. This continuous feedback loop enables adaptive prioritization that responds to changing conditions while maintaining ease of operation through automated decision-making.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #23Feedback

3Productivity

If preemption is allowed to improve task completion timing, then productivity is improved, but loss of time due to task switching and resumption increases

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvetask completion rateVSAvoidpreemption overhead time

Core Design Contradiction:

ProductivityVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The patent applies preliminary action by pre-establishing task priorities and preemption rules before execution begins. Agents have pre-defined criteria for when to preempt tasks, reducing the need for complex real-time decisions and minimizing the overhead time associated with task switching. This preliminary configuration enables efficient preemption while reducing decision-making delays.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #10Preliminary action

4Reliability

If uncertain task durations are accommodated with buffer time, then reliability of deadline completion is improved, but loss of time due to idle waiting increases

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvedeadline completion probabilityVSAvoididle waiting time

Core Design Contradiction:

ReliabilityVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The system dynamically adjusts task scheduling based on actual task progress and remaining time buffers. Instead of static buffer allocation, the system continuously monitors task duration estimates and reallocates time resources dynamically, reducing idle waiting time while maintaining adequate buffers for uncertain tasks. This dynamic time management improves both reliability and time utilization.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #15Dynamics

Data Source

PatentUS20240303108A1Method and system for assignment and prioritization of tasks in decentralized execution

Publication Date: 2024.09.12 JPMORGAN CHASE BANK NA

AI summary

A method for assignment and prioritization of tasks for satisfying deadlines in decentralized execution of tasks is provided. The method includes: receiving inputs that relate to a set of tasks, a set of agents, a set of goals, a set of priority levels that are assignable to each task, and a partial order plan that relates to ordering dependencies for performing and completing the tasks; determining a qualification function that relates to whether a particular task is performable by a particular agent; determining an availability function that relates to a respective availability of each agent during a particular time interval; and analyzing the partial order plan, the qualification function, and the availability function in order to obtain an assignment function that relates to a proposed set of assignments of tasks to agents and a prioritization function that relates to a proposed set of assignments of tasks to priority levels.