MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2149573515 · doi:10.1002/cpe.872

Performance evaluation of Data Distribution Management strategies

2004· article· en· W2149573515 on OpenAlexaff
Azzedine Boukerche, Caron Dzermajko

Bibliographic record

VenueConcurrency and Computation Practice and Experience · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicSimulation Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceBenchmark (surveying)ScalabilityHigh-level architectureDistribution management systemDistributed computingGridVariety (cybernetics)Scheme (mathematics)Service (business)Scale (ratio)Data managementDistribution (mathematics)Service levelData miningDatabaseInteroperabilityArtificial intelligenceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Data Distribution Management (DDM) is a High Level Architecture/Run‐Time Infrastructure (HLA/RTI) service that manages the distribution of state updates and interaction information in large‐scale distributed simulations and limits and controls the volume of data exchanged during the simulation. In this paper, we describe a mini‐RTI framework that we have developed in an effort to determine the most efficient model for applying the DDM service and the limitations of the scalability of various DDM methods. We study and compare the performance of the following five DDM strategies: two variations of the fixed‐based method, two variations of the dynamics grid‐based scheme and the region‐based method. Due to a lack of accepted benchmarks, we also propose a variety of workloads and scenarios, which we hope will become a standards benchmark within the distributed simulation communities. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.274
GPT teacher head0.521
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations15
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueConcurrency and Computation Practice and ExperienceSame topicSimulation Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207