MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2091517899 · doi:10.1109/have.2010.5623959

A redistribution scheme centred on communication delay for distributed virtual simulations

2010· article· en· W2091517899 on OpenAlexaff
Robson E. De Grande, Azzedine Boukerche

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicSimulation Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceDistributed computingHigh-level architectureScheme (mathematics)Performance metricNetwork topologyTelecommunications networkCommunications systemOverhead (engineering)Computer networkTopology (electrical circuits)Engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Communication latencies directly influence the performance of distributed virtual simulations due to existent dependencies between simulation elements. The High Level Architecture (HLA) was designed to organize these simulations and reduce communication overhead. Even though the framework successfully manages data distribution, it is not concerned of communication distances and the network topology, which generate mostly of the delays in simulations. In order to provide a solution for organizing distribution simulations according to communication aspects, many approaches have been proposed. The approaches that provide a broader solution consider the proximity of resources in their redistribution algorithms. Even though these schemes considerably improves simulation performance, they are based on static characteristics of networking resources. Thus, a redistribution scheme is proposed to include communication delay as the main balancing metric and to detect the dynamic changes in systems' communication load. Experiments have been performed to compare the proposed scheme with the previous distributed scheme and to determine the effectiveness of using delay for balancing HLA-based simulations.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.823
Threshold uncertainty score0.788

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.110
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.306 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations1
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSimulation Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207