MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2525766229 · doi:10.1109/tnet.2015.2480418

An Asynchronous Fixed-Point Algorithm for Resource Sharing With Coupled Objectives

2015· article· en· W2525766229 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

VenueIEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicStochastic Gradient Optimization Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSubgradient methodMathematical optimizationDistributed algorithmAsynchronous communicationConvergence (economics)Gradient descentResource allocationDistributed computingAlgorithmMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Distributed resource allocation and sharing can often be formulated as a utility maximization problem, with the objective being the sum of user utilities minus a coupled cost. A traditional distributed solution to such problems, called “consistency pricing,” decouples the objective function via dual decomposition, which is then iteratively solved by the subgradient method. However, such gradient-based approaches may require many iterations of message passing to converge, which may not be sufficient in large-scale real-time applications. In this paper, we propose a new fixed-point-like distributed solution to resource sharing problems with coupled objective functions. While preserving the simple pricing interpretation, our approach speeds up convergence by exploiting the structural difference between user utilities and the coupled cost function. We theoretically analyze the asynchronous algorithm convergence conditions based on contraction mapping. Through a detailed case study of cloud bandwidth reservation based on real-world workload traces, we demonstrate the benefits of the proposed algorithm over state-of-the-art distributed optimization techniques including gradient descent, dual decomposition, and ADMM. In addition, we also extend the proposed algorithm to approach a more general class of consensus optimization problems with not only a coupled objective function, but also a certain class of coupled constraints.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.318
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.239 · 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