Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
10.1145/3485447.3512136acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageswebconfConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Scheduling Virtual Conferences Fairly: Achieving Equitable Participant and Speaker Satisfaction

Published: 25 April 2022 Publication History
  • Get Citation Alerts
  • Abstract

    Recently, almost all conferences have moved to virtual mode due to the pandemic-induced restrictions on travel and social gathering. Contrary to in-person conferences, virtual conferences face the challenge of efficiently scheduling talks, accounting for the availability of participants from different timezones and their interests in attending different talks. A natural objective for conference organizers is to maximize efficiency, e.g., total expected audience participation across all talks. However, we show that optimizing for efficiency alone can result in an unfair virtual conference schedule, where individual utilities for participants and speakers can be highly unequal. To address this, we formally define fairness notions for participants and speakers, and derive suitable objectives to account for them. As the efficiency and fairness objectives can be in conflict with each other, we propose a joint optimization framework that allows conference organizers to design schedules that balance (i.e., allow trade-offs) among efficiency, participant fairness and speaker fairness objectives. While the optimization problem can be solved using integer programming to schedule smaller conferences, we provide two scalable techniques to cater to bigger conferences. Extensive evaluations over multiple real-world datasets show the efficacy and flexibility of our proposed approaches.

    References

    [1]
    2017. ICML’17: Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning - Volume 70 (Sydney, NSW, Australia). JMLR.org. https://dl.acm.org/doi/proceedings/10.5555/3305381
    [2]
    2020. Conference management: 5 benefits of hosting a virtual conference. https://oxfordabstracts.com/blog/2020-03-30-5-benefits-of-hosting-a-virtual-conference/
    [3]
    Ercan Atagün and Serdar Biroğul. 2020. Effectiveness of Genetic Algorithm in the Solution of Multidisciplinary Conference Scheduling Problem. In The International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Applied Mathematics in Engineering. Springer, 220–230.
    [4]
    Richard Baum, Dimitris Bertsimas, and Nathan Kallus. 2014. Scheduling, revenue management, and fairness in an academic-hospital radiology division. Academic radiology 21, 10 (2014), 1322–1330.
    [5]
    Peter George Capek, William Grey, Paul Andrew Moskowitz, Clifford A Pickover, and Dailun Shi. 2008. Event scheduling with optimization. US Patent 7,343,312.
    [6]
    Andy Chun, Hon Wai, and Rebecca YM Wong. 2003. Optimizing agent-based meeting scheduling through preference estimation. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 16, 7-8(2003), 727–743.
    [7]
    Rubens Correia, Anand Subramanian, Teobaldo Bulhoes, and Puca Huachi V Penna. 2021. Scheduling the Brazilian OR Conference. Journal of the Operational Research Society(2021).
    [8]
    Hal Daumé III and Aarti Singh. 2020. ICML 2020 Virtualization Survey Responses - Results. https://icml.cc/Conferences/2020/VirtualizationSurvey
    [9]
    Alastair F Donaldson. 2020. A Report on the first virtual PLDI conference. arXiv preprint arXiv:2007.11686(2020).
    [10]
    Wen Fang, Qingqing Zhang, Qingwen Liu, Jun Wu, and Pengfei Xia. 2018. Fair scheduling in resonant beam charging for IoT devices. IEEE Internet of Things Journal 6, 1 (2018), 641–653.
    [11]
    Eugene C Freuder, Marius Minca, and Richard J Wallace. 2001. Privacy/efficiency tradeoffs in distributed meeting scheduling by constraint-based agents. In Proc. IJCAI DCR. Citeseer, 63–72.
    [12]
    Michael R Garey and David S Johnson. 1979. Computers and intractability. Vol. 174. freeman San Francisco.
    [13]
    Leonardo Garrido and Katia Sycara. 1996. Multi-agent meeting scheduling: Preliminary experimental results. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Multiagent Systems. 95–102.
    [14]
    Corrado Gini. 1912. Variabilità e mutabilità. Reprinted in Memorie di metodologica statistica (Ed. Pizetti E (1912).
    [15]
    GH Hardy, JE Littlewood, and G Pólya. 1967. Inequalities. Cambridge Mathematical Library Series.
    [16]
    Michael Harris, John Carrino, and Eric Wong. 2015. Fair scheduling for mixed-query loads. US Patent 9,092,482.
    [17]
    Michael Isard, Vijayan Prabhakaran, Jon Currey, Udi Wieder, Kunal Talwar, and Andrew Goldberg. 2009. Quincy: fair scheduling for distributed computing clusters. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGOPS 22nd symposium on Operating systems principles. 261–276.
    [18]
    Judy Kay and Piers Lauder. 1988. A fair share scheduler. Commun. ACM 31, 1 (1988), 44–55.
    [19]
    Harold W Kuhn. 1955. The Hungarian method for the assignment problem. Naval research logistics quarterly 2, 1-2 (1955), 83–97.
    [20]
    Hooyeon Lee and Ashish Goel. 2016. Probabilistic Matrix Inspection and Group Scheduling. In IJCAI. 322–328.
    [21]
    Tong Li, Dan Baumberger, and Scott Hahn. 2009. Efficient and scalable multiprocessor fair scheduling using distributed weighted round-robin. ACM Sigplan Notices 44, 4 (2009), 65–74.
    [22]
    Jean-Pierre Lozi, Baptiste Lepers, Justin Funston, Fabien Gaud, Vivien Quéma, and Alexandra Fedorova. 2016. The Linux scheduler: a decade of wasted cores. In Proceedings of the Eleventh European Conference on Computer Systems. 1–16.
    [23]
    Kshiteej Mahajan, Arjun Singhvi, Arjun Balasubramanian, Varun Batra, Surya Teja Chavali, Shivaram Venkataraman, Aditya Akella, Amar Phanishayee, and Shuchi Chawla. 2019. Themis: Fair and efficient gpu cluster scheduling for machine learning workloads. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.01484(2019).
    [24]
    Rajiv Maheswaran, Milind Tambe, Emma Bowring, Jonathan Pearce, and Pradeep Varakantham. 2004. Taking DCOP to the real world: Efficient complete solutions for distributed event scheduling. (2004).
    [25]
    Rajiv T Maheswaran, Jonathan P Pearce, Emma Bowring, Pradeep Varakantham, and Milind Tambe. 2006. Privacy loss in distributed constraint reasoning: A quantitative framework for analysis and its applications. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 13, 1 (2006), 27–60.
    [26]
    Chris Misa, Dennis Guse, Oliver Hohlfeld, Ramakrishnan Durairajan, Anna Sperotto, Alberto Dainotti, and Reza Rejaie. 2020. Lessons learned organizing the PAM 2020 virtual conference. ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review 50, 3 (2020), 46–54.
    [27]
    José A Pino and Hugo A Mora. 1998. Scheduling meetings using participants’ preferences. Information Technology & People(1998).
    [28]
    Jan Pisanski and Tomaž Pisanski. 2019. The use of collaboration distance in scheduling conference talks. Informatica 43, 4 (2019).
    [29]
    Michael Saliba. 2020. Getting to grips with online conferences. Nature Energy 5, 7 (2020), 488–490.
    [30]
    Amartya Sen, Bernard Arthur Owen Williams, Bernard Williams, 1982. Utilitarianism and beyond. Cambridge University Press.
    [31]
    Sandip Sen and Edmund H Durfee. 1998. A formal study of distributed meeting scheduling. Group Decision and Negotiation 7, 3 (1998), 265–289.
    [32]
    Thomas Stidsen, David Pisinger, and Daniele Vigo. 2018. Scheduling EURO-k conferences. European Journal of Operational Research 270, 3 (2018), 1138–1147.
    [33]
    Nitin Vaidya, Anurag Dugar, Seema Gupta, and Paramvir Bahl. 2005. Distributed fair scheduling in a wireless LAN. IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing 4, 6 (2005), 616–629.
    [34]
    Richard J Wallace and Eugene C Freuder. 2005. Constraint-based reasoning and privacy/efficiency tradeoffs in multi-agent problem solving. Artificial Intelligence 161, 1-2 (2005), 209–227.

    Cited By

    View all
    • (2024)Verifying Proportionality in Temporal VotingProceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems10.5555/3635637.3663122(2246-2248)Online publication date: 6-May-2024

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Information & Contributors

    Information

    Published In

    cover image ACM Conferences
    WWW '22: Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2022
    April 2022
    3764 pages
    ISBN:9781450390965
    DOI:10.1145/3485447
    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

    Sponsors

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    Published: 25 April 2022

    Permissions

    Request permissions for this article.

    Check for updates

    Author Tags

    1. Fair Conference Scheduling
    2. Virtual Conference Scheduling

    Qualifiers

    • Research-article
    • Research
    • Refereed limited

    Funding Sources

    Conference

    WWW '22
    Sponsor:
    WWW '22: The ACM Web Conference 2022
    April 25 - 29, 2022
    Virtual Event, Lyon, France

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate 1,899 of 8,196 submissions, 23%

    Contributors

    Other Metrics

    Bibliometrics & Citations

    Bibliometrics

    Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)28
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)6
    Reflects downloads up to 27 Jul 2024

    Other Metrics

    Citations

    Cited By

    View all
    • (2024)Verifying Proportionality in Temporal VotingProceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems10.5555/3635637.3663122(2246-2248)Online publication date: 6-May-2024

    View Options

    Get Access

    Login options

    View options

    PDF

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    HTML Format

    View this article in HTML Format.

    HTML Format

    Media

    Figures

    Other

    Tables

    Share

    Share

    Share this Publication link

    Share on social media