Scheduling Problems over Network of Machines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We consider scheduling problems in which jobs need to be processed through a (shared) network of machines. The network is given in the form of a graph the edges of which represent the machines. We are also given a set of jobs, each specified by its processing time and a path in the graph. Every job needs to be processed in the order of edges specified by its path. We assume that jobs can wait between machines and preemption is not allowed; that is, once a job is started being processed on a machine, it must be completed without interruption. Every machine can only process one job at a time. The makespan of a schedule is the earliest time by which all the jobs have finished processing. The flow time (a.k.a. the completion time) of a job in a schedule is the difference in time between when it finishes processing on its last machine and when the it begins processing on its first machine. The total flow time (or the sum of completion times) is the sum of flow times (or completion times) of all jobs. Our focus is on finding schedules with the minimum sum of completion times or minimum makespan. In this paper, we develop several algorithms (both approximate and exact) for the problem both on general graphs and when the underlying graph of machines is a tree. Even in the very special case when the underlying network is a simple star, the problem is very interesting as it models a biprocessor scheduling with applications to data migration.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".