Proposing, never assigning: fair allocation of control-room shifts in experimental particle physics collaborations from ranked wishes under institutional quotas
Abstract
Experimental particle physics collaborations staff their detectors around the clock with members drawn from dozens of institutions. The established practice is a credit system with self-sign-up: institutions owe a quota of credit, and people take the seats they want when booking opens. This paper describes a method in which seats are instead allocated from ranked wishes under institutional quotas, the result is issued as offers that each person accepts or declines, and an independent checker recomputes every rule before anything is published: the platform proposes, never assigns, and proves that it kept the rules. The credit and quota model is inherited from current practice. Around that core the paper adds a quota rule that keeps indivisible blocks fair to institutions whose share of a period is smaller than one block, and four rules that make fairness visible beyond the count: shares of owl, weekend and holiday blocks, seats shown in the laboratory's clock and the institution's own, reachable pools for institutions that cannot travel, and booking order by balance. On a synthetic collaboration of 48 institutions and 256 eligible members, the method allocates 70 to 72 of 72 seats per period in two rounds, with a mean rank satisfaction of 84 to 95% and no rule broken; after a year of running every institution of four members or more is within 13% of its cumulative share, and the smallest institutions, which one block overshoots by arithmetic, are brought within the same range by pooling in pairs. The method is stated completely enough to be reimplemented; a reference implementation exists and is available to collaborations under license. It applies as it stands to any scientific collaboration that staffs a facility in blocks of shifts under institutional quotas.
Related
- Proposing GRENDEL: GalleRy ExperimeNt for Decays of Exotic LLPs at the LHC
- Proposing one-sided tetrons as topological qubits for Majorana-based quantum computation
- Using artificial intelligence for clinical trial quality assurance in a multi-institutional neurovascular-sparing prostate radiotherapy trial
- TDM flexible PON based optical fronthaul networks: fine-grained QoT-aware dynamic bandwidth allocation
- Optimal weight allocation for steering network dynamics to a target time scale
BibTeX
@misc{benslama2026proposing,
title = {{Proposing, never assigning: fair allocation of control-room shifts in experimental particle physics collaborations from ranked wishes under institutional quotas}},
author = {Kamal Benslama},
howpublished = {arXiv},
year = {2026},
month = sep,
doi = {10.48550/arxiv.2609.19658},
eprint = {2609.19658},
archivePrefix = {arXiv},
url = {https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.19658},
}
RIS
TY - UNPB
TI - Proposing, never assigning: fair allocation of control-room shifts in experimental particle physics collaborations from ranked wishes under institutional quotas
AU - Kamal Benslama
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/09/19
PB - arXiv
DO - 10.48550/arxiv.2609.19658
UR - https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.19658
AB - Experimental particle physics collaborations staff their detectors around the clock with members drawn from dozens of institutions. The established practice is a credit system with self-sign-up: institutions owe a quota of credit, and people take the seats they want when booking opens. This paper describes a method in which seats are instead allocated from ranked wishes under institutional quotas, the result is issued as offers that each person accepts or declines, and an independent checker recomputes every rule before anything is published: the platform proposes, never assigns, and proves that it kept the rules. The credit and quota model is inherited from current practice. Around that core the paper adds a quota rule that keeps indivisible blocks fair to institutions whose share of a period is smaller than one block, and four rules that make fairness visible beyond the count: shares of owl, weekend and holiday blocks, seats shown in the laboratory's clock and the institution's own, reachable pools for institutions that cannot travel, and booking order by balance. On a synthetic collaboration of 48 institutions and 256 eligible members, the method allocates 70 to 72 of 72 seats per period in two rounds, with a mean rank satisfaction of 84 to 95% and no rule broken; after a year of running every institution of four members or more is within 13% of its cumulative share, and the smallest institutions, which one block overshoots by arithmetic, are brought within the same range by pooling in pairs. The method is stated completely enough to be reimplemented; a reference implementation exists and is available to collaborations under license. It applies as it stands to any scientific collaboration that staffs a facility in blocks of shifts under institutional quotas.
ER -