MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2166345115 · doi:10.1109/icppw.2001.951913

Feedback guided dynamic loop scheduling; A theoretical approach

2002· article· en· W2166345115 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
TopicParallel Computing and Optimization Techniques
Canadian institutionsSt. Francis Xavier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceLoop (graph theory)Feedback loopWorkloadInner loopScheduling (production processes)Dynamic priority schedulingLoop fissionLoop tilingConvergence (economics)Loop fusionControl theory (sociology)ScheduleMathematical optimizationParallel computingMathematicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper we review existing loop scheduling algorithms and also describe the feedback-guided dynamic loop scheduling (FGDLS) algorithm that was proposed in Bull et al. (1996) and Bull (1998). The FGDLS algorithm uses a feedback mechanism to schedule a parallel loop within a sequential outer loop. It has been shown to perform well for scheduling problems for which the load associated with the parallel loop changes relatively slowly as the outer sequential loop executes. However the question of convergence of the FGDLS algorithm has remained an open question. In this paper we are able to establish sufficient conditions (essentially requiring that the workload does not change too rapidly with loop iteration count) for the (global) convergence of a continuous analogue of the feedback-guided algorithm.

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: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.979
Threshold uncertainty score0.455

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.236 · 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