The choice of optimisation criterion in the uniform assignment problem
Diskretnaya Matematika, Tome 17 (2005) no. 4, pp. 150-157
Cet article a éte moissonné depuis la source Math-Net.Ru
In many optimisation problems, an optimisation criterion is introduced whose part may be played by a numerical functional which has to be maximised or minimised. The situation is rather common where several functionals may be put for the part of criterion. As a rule, the choice of criterion is a result of certain intuitive reasons and influences the way of solving the problem. Considering a problem with different criteria, one can get different solutions, so a need for additional studies arises in order to make the best choice among optimisation criteria. In the uniform assignment problem, any symmetric functional which has the properties of a norm can be taken as the uniformity criterion. But the solutions which minimise a particular criterion, namely, the square deviation of the number of jobs of a worker from the average, minimise all other criteria as well, and it is reasonable to choose precisely this functional as the optimisation criterion.
@article{DM_2005_17_4_a13,
author = {V. S. Rublev and N. B. Chaplygina},
title = {The choice of optimisation criterion in the uniform assignment problem},
journal = {Diskretnaya Matematika},
pages = {150--157},
year = {2005},
volume = {17},
number = {4},
language = {ru},
url = {http://geodesic.mathdoc.fr/item/DM_2005_17_4_a13/}
}
V. S. Rublev; N. B. Chaplygina. The choice of optimisation criterion in the uniform assignment problem. Diskretnaya Matematika, Tome 17 (2005) no. 4, pp. 150-157. http://geodesic.mathdoc.fr/item/DM_2005_17_4_a13/
[1] Kropanov V. A., Rublev V. S., “Ravnomernoe naznachenie rabot minimalnoi stoimosti”, Diskretnaya matematika, 13:4 (2001), 144–156 | MR | Zbl
[2] Rublev V. S., Zadacha o ravnomernom raspredelenii rabot, Dep. VINITI No 611-V87 26.01.87
[3] Rublev V. S., Chaplygina N. B., “Rasshirenie zadachi o naznacheniyakh”, Modelirovanie i analiz informatsionnykh sistem, 9:2 (2002), 3–11