The impact of runtime estimation inaccuracy on scheduler performance
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It has been shown that runtime estimation errors have a large impact on scheduler performance. In previous research, scheduling algorithms were mainly used in a homogeneous environment. In this paper, we investigate several scheduling heuristics that are commonly used in the grid environment. We systematically study how runtime relative estimation errors affect the scheduler performance in different grid scenarios by conducting experiments using simulation. We choose Dynamic-selection, Min-min, Seg-min-min, Max-min, and Sufferage as our scheduling algorithms for the experiments. Our results show interesting trends: (1) increased estimation error results in degrading performance of all tested scheduling heuristics, making them even worse than the basic Round-Robin approach if errors are large; however, locally, performance is sometimes better and, in some special cases, estimation errors do not affect scheduler performance; (2) unlike in general, increased estimation errors diminish the performance difference among individual heuristics; (3) there is a performance threshold, no matter how large the estimation errors are; (4) increased accuracy of runtime estimation improves performance in general.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it