MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2162193020 · doi:10.1109/ipdps.2001.925215

On preemption redundancy in scheduling unit processing time jobs on two parallel machines

2005· article· en· W2162193020 on OpenAlexaff
Pierre Baptiste, Vadim G. Timkovsky

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicScheduling and Optimization Algorithms
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPreemptionComputer scienceScheduling (production processes)ConjectureCounterexampleRedundancy (engineering)Parallel computingProcessor schedulingScheduleAlgorithmCombinatoricsMathematicsMathematical optimizationOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

McNaughton’s theorem (1959) states that preemptions in scheduling arbitrary processing time jobs on identical parallel machines to minimize the total weighted completion time are redundant. Du, Leung and Young (1991) proved that this remains true even though the jobs have precedence constraints in the form of chains. There are known simple counterexamples showing that other extensions of McNaughton’s theorem to other criteria or more general precedence constraints such as intrees or outtrees, or different release dates of jobs, or different speeds of machines, are not true even for equal weights of jobs. In this paper we show that in the case of two machines and unit processing times, preemptions are still advantageous for intrees or machines with different speeds even for equal weights, or outtrees for different weights, but become redundant for outtrees and equal weights even for different release dates. We also conjecture that the latter statement is actually true for any number of machines.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.097
Threshold uncertainty score0.662

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.243 · 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
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

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicScheduling and Optimization AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207