MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1974722603 · doi:10.5555/1639809.1639860

Selecting GVT interval for time-warp-based distributed simulation using reinforcement learning technique

2009· article· en· W1974722603 on OpenAlexaff
Jun Wang, Carl Tropper

Bibliographic record

VenueSpring Simulation Multiconference · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicSimulation Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceTimestampInterval (graph theory)ComputationReinforcement learningOverhead (engineering)Process (computing)Distributed computingSimple (philosophy)Real-time computingParallel computingAlgorithmArtificial intelligenceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In a Time-Warp-based distributed simulation system, a simulation process must save its states and events to handle rollbacks. Periodically, the global minimum of the timestamps of events and messages in the entire system is calculated. This value is known as the global virtual time (GVT), and it plays an important role in a Time Warp system. GVT is only computed periodically because of the computation overhead. An important problem is to determine the optimal interval between two GVT computations. In this paper we present a new approach that uses a simple Reinforcement Learning technique to select the optimal GVT interval. Used in a Time-Warp-based distributed VLSI simulation system, our method was successful in selecting good GVT interval and improving the system's performance.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.142
GPT teacher head0.440
Teacher spread0.299 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

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

Citations3
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpring Simulation MulticonferenceSame topicSimulation Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207