You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The GatorGrouper tool adopts different approaches to assigning people to a team based on "scores" for each individual who can be assigned to a team. However, the documentation does not explain how the tool handles higher-is-better (HIB) and lower-is-better (LIB) scores. Does it handle both? Does it only handle one of these? How does the algorithm handle a mixture of HIB and LIB scores? How does a person who uses the tool specify that the reported scores are actually HIB or LIB?
From the perspective of function optimization or constraint satisfaction (say we add new algorithms as in #107) then we need to think very carefully how people report and classify their scores and then the algorithms process those scores.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
@aubreypc used HIB in the graph implementation, pull request #229, and this should be adopted as the standard instead of LIB throughout the entire project.
The GatorGrouper tool adopts different approaches to assigning people to a team based on "scores" for each individual who can be assigned to a team. However, the documentation does not explain how the tool handles higher-is-better (HIB) and lower-is-better (LIB) scores. Does it handle both? Does it only handle one of these? How does the algorithm handle a mixture of HIB and LIB scores? How does a person who uses the tool specify that the reported scores are actually HIB or LIB?
From the perspective of function optimization or constraint satisfaction (say we add new algorithms as in #107) then we need to think very carefully how people report and classify their scores and then the algorithms process those scores.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: