MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1554654249 · doi:10.1109/rtas.2005.49

Solution Space for Fixed-Priority with Preemption Threshold

2005· article· en· W1554654249 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicReal-Time Systems Scheduling
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPreemptionCorrectnessComputer scienceScheduling (production processes)AlgorithmDeadline-monotonic schedulingMathematical proofMathematical optimizationMathematicsDynamic priority schedulingRate-monotonic schedulingComputer networkQuality of service

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper reaffirms that fixed-priority with preemption threshold (FPPT) is an important form of real-time scheduling algorithm, which fills the gap between fixed-priority preemptive (FPP) and fixed-priority nonpreemptive (FPNP). When a task set is schedulable by FPPT, there may exist multiple valid preemption threshold assignments, which provide useful scheduling options. All valid assignments form a solution space that is delimited by a minimal and maximal assignment. A mechanism is presented to generate part of the valid assignments once the minimal and maximal assignments are known. The known algorithm to compute the minimal assignment starts at FPP, and the known algorithm to compute the maximal assignment starts from any valid assignment. This paper presents algorithms to compute the minimal and maximal assignments starting from FPNP, and the proofs for the correctness of these algorithms are also presented.

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)0.000
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 score0.944
Threshold uncertainty score0.346

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Quick stats

Citations19
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicReal-Time Systems SchedulingFrench-language works237,207