MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2512459603 · doi:10.1109/tpds.2016.2605684

Semi-Online Algorithms for Computational Task Offloading with Communication Delay

2016· article· en· W2512459603 on OpenAlexafffund
Jaya Prakash Champati, Ben Liang

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCloud Computing and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceHeuristicsScheduling (production processes)A priori and a posterioriJob shop schedulingCloud computingDistributed computingTask (project management)Set (abstract data type)Parallel computingAlgorithmReal-time computingComputer network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We study the scheduling of computational tasks on one local processor and one remote processor with communication delay. This problem has important application in cloud computing. Although the communication time to transmit a task can be inferred from the known data size of the task and the transmission bandwidth, the processing time of the task is generally unknown until it is processed to completion. Given a set of independent tasks with unknown processing times, our objective is to minimize makespan. We study the problem under two scenarios: (1) the communication times of the tasks to the remote processor are smaller than their corresponding processing times on the remote processor, and (2) the communication times of the tasks to the remote processor are larger than their corresponding processing times on the remote processor. For the first scenario we propose the Semi-online Partitioning and Communication (SPaC) algorithm, and for the second scenario we propose the SPaC-Restart (SPaC-R) algorithm. Even though the offline version of this problem, with a priori known processing times, is NP-hard, we show that the proposed semionline algorithms achieve O(1) competitive ratios for their intended scenarios. We also provide competitive ratios for both algorithms for more general communication times. We use simulation to demonstrate that SPaC and SPaC-R outperform online list scheduling and performs comparably well with the best known offline heuristics.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.226 · 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

Citations24
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed SystemsSame topicCloud Computing and Resource ManagementFrench-language works237,207