MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2081187248 · doi:10.1109/pimrc.2012.6362851

Optimal tradeoff between efficiency and Jain's fairness index in resource allocation

2012· article· en· W2081187248 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
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Wireless Network Optimization
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndex (typography)Set (abstract data type)Mathematical optimizationComputer scienceResource allocationResource efficiencyResource (disambiguation)MathematicsComputer network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we study tradeoff policies between efficiency and the Jain's fairness index of the benefits received by M users in general resource allocation scenarios. Analyzing the commonly-used α-fair tradeoff policy, it is shown that, except for the case of M =2 users, this policy does not necessarily achieve the optimal Efficiency-Jain tradeoff. In particular, it is shown that, when the number of users M >;2, the gap between the efficiency achieved by the α-fair and the optimal Efficiency-Jain tradeoff policy can be unbounded, for the same Jain's index. Finding the optimal Efficiency-Jain tradeoff for arbitrary set of admissible benefits is generally difficult. To alleviate this difficulty, we derive sufficient conditions, which, when satisfied by the set of admissible benefits, lead to efficiently computable optimal tradeoff and benefit vectors. Numerical results for a typical communication network scenario are provided to confirm analytical findings.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.570
Threshold uncertainty score0.449

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.202 · 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

Citations47
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Wireless Network OptimizationFrench-language works237,207