MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1480509802 · doi:10.5555/1357910.1357986

Heuristic scheduling algorithms designed based on properties of optimal algorithm for soft real-time tasks

2007· article· en· W1480509802 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSummer Computer Simulation Conference · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicReal-Time Systems Scheduling
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceScheduling (production processes)HeuristicAlgorithmScheduleTask (project management)Time complexityMathematical optimizationSet (abstract data type)Job shop schedulingMathematicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A soft real-time task is one whose completion time is recommended by a specific deadline. However, should the deadline be missed, such a task is not considered to have failed; only the later it finishes, the higher the penalty that is paid. For a set of soft real-time tasks that are to be scheduled on a single machine, our objective is to minimize the total penalty paid. Since the problem is NP-hard, it is not known whether an optimal schedule can be found in polynomial time. We prove four properties of any optimal scheduling algorithm for the problem. Then, we derive a number of heuristic algorithms which hold the properties obtained herein. The heuristic algorithms differ in the way that the tasks priorities are assigned. These algorithms assign priorities by using functions of task execution times, penalty factors or deadlines. Numerical simulations are presented to compare the penalty to be paid by each algorithm.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.503
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.239 · 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