MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W126257098 · doi:10.1109/simsym.2000.844919

Flow control and dynamic load balancing in Time Warp

2002· article· en· W126257098 on OpenAlexaff
Myongsu Choe, Carl Tropper

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOptimization and Search Problems
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceLoad balancing (electrical power)Flow (mathematics)Scheme (mathematics)AlgorithmParallel computingDistributed computingControl flowReduction (mathematics)Flow control (data)Real-time computingComputer network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present an algorithm which integrates flow control and dynamic load balancing in Time Warp. The algorithm is intended for use in a distributed memory environment. Our flow control algorithm makes use of stochastic learning automata and is similar to the leaky-bucket flow control algorithm used in computer networks. It regulates the flow of messages between processors continously throughout the course of the simulation, while the dynamic load balancing algorithm is invoked only when a load imbalance is detected. We compare the perfomance of the flow control algorithm, the dynamic load balancing algorithm and the integrated algorithm with that of a simulation without these controls. We simulated large shuffle ring networks with and without hot spots and a PCS network on an SGI Origin 2000 system. Our results indicate that the flow control scheme alone succeeds in greatly reducing the number and length of rollbacks as well as the number of anti-messages, thereby increasing the number of non-rolledback messages processed per second. It results in a large reduction in the amount of memory used and outperforms the dynamic load balancing algorithm for these measures. The integrated scheme produces even better results for all of these measures and results in reduced execution times.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.927
Threshold uncertainty score0.303

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.200 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicOptimization and Search ProblemsFrench-language works237,207