MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2809579289 · doi:10.1145/3209582.3209602

Age-based Scheduling

2018· article· en· W2809579289 on OpenAlexafffund
Ning Lü, Bo Ji, Bin Li

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAge of Information Optimization
Canadian institutionsThompson Rivers University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsComputer scienceScheduling (production processes)Dynamic priority schedulingDistributed computingMaximum throughput schedulingInformation AgeFair-share schedulingPerformance metricWireless ad hoc networkEarliest deadline first schedulingComputer networkReal-time computingRate-monotonic schedulingRound-robin schedulingWirelessMathematical optimizationQuality of service

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We consider the problem of scheduling real-time traffic with hard deadlines in a wireless ad hoc network. In contrast to existing real-time scheduling policies that merely ensure a minimal timely throughput, our design goal is to provide guarantees on both the timely throughput and data freshness in terms of age-of-information (AoI), which is a newly proposed metric that captures the "age" of the most recently received information at the destination of a link. The main idea is to introduce the AoI as one of the driving factors in making scheduling decisions. We first prove that the proposed scheduling policy is feasibility-optimal, i.e., satisfying the per-traffic timely throughput requirement. Then, we derive an upper bound on a considered data freshness metric in terms of AoI, demonstrating that the network-wide data freshness is guaranteed and can be tuned under the proposed scheduling policy. Interestingly, we reveal that the improvement of network data freshness is at the cost of slowing down the convergence of the timely throughput. Extensive simulations are performed to validate our analytical results. Both analytical and simulation results confirm the capability of the proposed scheduling policy to improve the data freshness without sacrificing the feasibility optimality.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations132
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAge of Information OptimizationFrench-language works237,207