From affb6e6a27325110e9f65c16506779eacf8c6c36 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Matt McCutchen Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2008 11:32:52 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] - Add the notes Samir emailed me on 2008-07-06. - Move the program into a subdirectory to cut down on rebuilding. - Hide the .git contents from Eclipse. --- ...match.launch => make match program.launch} | 6 +-- .project | 9 +++- notes | 52 +++++++++++++++++++ .gitignore => program/.gitignore | 0 BellmanFord.hs => program/BellmanFord.hs | 0 Makefile => program/Makefile | 0 ProposalMatch.hs => program/ProposalMatch.hs | 0 .../ProposalMatchConfig.hs | 0 Test.hs => program/Test.hs | 0 .../UnitMinCostFlow.hs | 0 debug => program/debug | 0 run => program/run | 0 12 files changed, 63 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) rename .externalToolBuilders/{make match.launch => make match program.launch} (51%) create mode 100644 notes rename .gitignore => program/.gitignore (100%) rename BellmanFord.hs => program/BellmanFord.hs (100%) rename Makefile => program/Makefile (100%) rename ProposalMatch.hs => program/ProposalMatch.hs (100%) rename ProposalMatchConfig.hs => program/ProposalMatchConfig.hs (100%) rename Test.hs => program/Test.hs (100%) rename UnitMinCostFlow.hs => program/UnitMinCostFlow.hs (100%) rename debug => program/debug (100%) rename run => program/run (100%) diff --git a/.externalToolBuilders/make match.launch b/.externalToolBuilders/make match program.launch similarity index 51% rename from .externalToolBuilders/make match.launch rename to .externalToolBuilders/make match program.launch index 0ff90ed..4f8de19 100644 --- a/.externalToolBuilders/make match.launch +++ b/.externalToolBuilders/make match program.launch @@ -1,10 +1,10 @@ - + - + - + diff --git a/.project b/.project index b302f1b..165f368 100644 --- a/.project +++ b/.project @@ -11,11 +11,18 @@ LaunchConfigHandle - <project>/.externalToolBuilders/make match.launch + <project>/.externalToolBuilders/make match program.launch + + + .git + 2 + /home/matt/Emptydir + + diff --git a/notes b/notes new file mode 100644 index 0000000..8317707 --- /dev/null +++ b/notes @@ -0,0 +1,52 @@ +For funding agencies such as NSF program directors +that co-ordinate panels, assigning proposals to +reviewers is a major challenge. It is important that each proposal be +reviewed by qualified experts, and at the same time we would like the +workload across different reviewers to be roughly balanced. The same +issue arises for a program committee chair, who may have to assign +literally hundreds of papers to a program committee consisting of +thirty to forty program committee members. + +What does CMT use? What does Easychair use? + +From now on we will focus on the problem of assigning papers to +reviewers. +We assume that each reviewer is given access to the +list of papers to be reviewed, and provides input on their +preferences by giving a ``desirability'' score to each paper. +We also assume that each paper has to be reviewed by $at least r$ +reviewers. + +List of codes. + +We do not consider stable marriage type preference lists, +because a strict ranking of papers would be rather tedious +to produce. In this scheme, the papers are essentially grouped +into a few categories. + + +Ideally, from the perspective of the papers, we would like to +assign each paper the $r$ ``best'' reviewers for the paper. +Ofcourse, this would lead to a load imbalanced solution where +the load on some program committee members is very high, and the +load on others is low. On the other hand, we could insist +on a perfectly load balanced solution in which the number +of papers assigned to each program committee member do not +exceed $\lceil rN/P \rceil$, where $N$ is the number of +submissions and $P$ is the number of program committee members. +Recall that each paper needs $r$ reviewers, so a total of $rN$ +reviews need to be generated. However this may lead to a solution +which is not optimal from the perspective of the papers. + +One of our goals is to study precisely this tradeoff, and allow each +reviewer to have upto $\lceil rN/P \rceil + C$ papers assigned to +them, where $C$ is the {\em imbalance factor}. The main question +we consider is: is it possible to obtain a high quality +assignment with a fairly low value of $C$? + +One can ask the same question from the perspective of the reviewers +as well. Each reviewer would ideally like papers +that are the ``most desirable'' from their point of view. + +{\em Stinkers} are papers that pretty much no-one wanted to review. +We would like to spread the load of the stinkers as evenly as possible. diff --git a/.gitignore b/program/.gitignore similarity index 100% rename from .gitignore rename to program/.gitignore diff --git a/BellmanFord.hs b/program/BellmanFord.hs similarity index 100% rename from BellmanFord.hs rename to program/BellmanFord.hs diff --git a/Makefile b/program/Makefile similarity index 100% rename from Makefile rename to program/Makefile diff --git a/ProposalMatch.hs b/program/ProposalMatch.hs similarity index 100% rename from ProposalMatch.hs rename to program/ProposalMatch.hs diff --git a/ProposalMatchConfig.hs b/program/ProposalMatchConfig.hs similarity index 100% rename from ProposalMatchConfig.hs rename to program/ProposalMatchConfig.hs diff --git a/Test.hs b/program/Test.hs similarity index 100% rename from Test.hs rename to program/Test.hs diff --git a/UnitMinCostFlow.hs b/program/UnitMinCostFlow.hs similarity index 100% rename from UnitMinCostFlow.hs rename to program/UnitMinCostFlow.hs diff --git a/debug b/program/debug similarity index 100% rename from debug rename to program/debug diff --git a/run b/program/run similarity index 100% rename from run rename to program/run -- 2.34.1