Risk-Aware Scheduling of Dual Criticality Job Systems Using Demand Distributions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We pose the problem of scheduling Mixed Criticality (MC) job systems when there are only two criticality levels, Lo and Hi -referred to as Dual Criticality job systems- on a single processing platform, when job demands are probabilistic and their distributions are known. The current MC models require that the scheduling policy allocate as little execution time as possible to Lo-criticality jobs if the scenario of execution is of Hi criticality, and drop Lo-criticality jobs entirely as soon as the execution scenario's criticality level can be inferred and is Hi. The work incurred by "incorrectly" scheduling Lo-criticality jobs in cases of Hi realized scenarios might affect the feasibility of Hi criticality jobs; we quantify this work and call it Work Threatening Feasibility (WTF). Our objective is to construct online scheduling policies that minimize the expected WTF for the given instance, and under which the instance is feasible in a probabilistic sense that is consistent with the traditional deterministic definition of MC feasibility. We develop a probabilistic framework for MC scheduling, where feasibility is defined in terms of (chance) constraints on the probabilities that Lo and Hi jobs meet their deadlines. The probabilities are computed over the set of sample paths, or trajectories, induced by executing the policy, and those paths are dependent upon the set of execution scenarios and the given demand distributions. Our goal is to exploit the information provided by job distributions to compute the minimum expected WTF below which the given instance is not feasible in probability, and to compute a (randomized) "efficiently implementable" scheduling policy that realizes the latter quantity. We model the problem as a Constrained Markov Decision Process (CMDP) over a suitable state space and a finite planning horizon, and show that an optimal (non-stationary) Markov randomized scheduling policy exists. We derive an optimal policy by solving a Linear Program (LP). We also carry out quantitative evaluations on select probabilistic MC instances to demonstrate that our approach potentially outperforms current MC scheduling policies.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".