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 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

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.

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)0.004
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.805
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.142
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