MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2020291377 · doi:10.5555/545381.545437

Broadcast scheduling: when fairness is fine

2002· article· en· W2020291377 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
TopicOptimization and Search Problems
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceScheduling (production processes)Latency (audio)Online algorithmCompetitive analysisServerComputer networkApproximation algorithmDistributed computingParallel computingOperating systemAlgorithmUpper and lower boundsMathematical optimization

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We investigate server scheduling policies to minimize user perceived latency in a client-server system where the server uses broadcast communication. We show that no O(1)-competitive online algorithms exist for this problem. We consider the intuitive algorithm BEQUI that broadcasts all requested files at a rate proportional to the number of outstanding requests for that file. We show that BEQUI is an O(1)-speed O(1)-approximation algorithm. We give another algorithm BEQUI-EDF, and show that BEQUI-EDF is also an O(1)-speed O(1)-approximation algorithm. However, BEQUI-EDF has the advantage that it preempts each broadcast on average at most once and will never preempt if the data items have unit size.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.937
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.201 · 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

Citations33
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicOptimization and Search ProblemsFrench-language works237,207