MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2135331813 · doi:10.1109/glocom.2001.966200

Deadline based channel scheduling

2002· article· en· W2135331813 on OpenAlexaff
Y.E. Liu, J.W. Wong

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNetwork Traffic and Congestion Control
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceEarliest deadline first schedulingScheduling (production processes)Network packetReal-time computingDynamic priority schedulingRound-robin schedulingComputer networkFair-share schedulingRate-monotonic schedulingDeadline-monotonic schedulingQueuePriority queueDistributed computingQuality of serviceMathematical optimizationMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of deadline based channel scheduling in support of real time delivery of application data units (ADU's) is investigated. Of interest is priority scheduling where a packet with a smaller ratio of delivery deadline over number of hops to destination is given a higher priority. It has been shown that a variant of this scheduling algorithm, based on head-of-the-line priority, is efficient and effective in supporting real time delivery of ADU's. In this variant, packets with a ratio smaller than or equal to a given threshold are sent to the higher priority queue. We first present a technique to select this threshold dynamically. The effectiveness of our technique is evaluated by simulation. We then study the performance of deadline based channel scheduling for large networks, with multiple autonomous systems. For this case, accurate information on number of hops to destination may not be available. A technique to estimate this distance metric is presented. The effectiveness of our algorithm with this estimated distance metric is evaluated. In addition, we study the performance of a multi-service scenario where only a fraction of the routers deploy deadline based channel scheduling.

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)0.000
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 score0.953
Threshold uncertainty score0.547

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.181 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations7
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNetwork Traffic and Congestion ControlFrench-language works237,207