MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2108866371 · doi:10.1145/1529282.1529522

Using artificial life techniques for distributed grid job scheduling

2009· article· en· W2108866371 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
TopicDistributed and Parallel Computing Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLoad balancing (electrical power)Computer scienceDistributed computingParticle swarm optimizationSingle point of failureGridWorkloadScheduling (production processes)Ant colony optimization algorithmsGrid computingMathematical optimizationAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Grids are an emerging infrastructure providing distributed access to computational and storage resources. Handling many incoming requests at the same time and distributing the workload efficiently is a challenge which load balancing algorithms address. Current load balancing implementations for the Grid are central in nature and therefore prone to the single point of failure problem. This paper introduces two distributed artificial life-inspired load balancing algorithms using Ant Colony Optimization and Particle Swarm Optimization. Distributed load balancing stands out as a robust algorithm in regard to any topology changes in the network. The implementation details are given and evaluation results show the efficiency of the two distributed load balancing algorithms.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.940
Threshold uncertainty score0.628

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.250 · 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