MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2914576029 · doi:10.1109/iwqos.2018.8624150

Completion Time Minimization in Multi-User Task Scheduling with Heterogeneous Processors and Budget Constraints

2018· article· en· W2914576029 on OpenAlexaff
Sowndarya Sundar, Jaya Prakash Champati, Ben Liang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicIoT and Edge/Fog Computing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceRoundingScheduling (production processes)ScalabilityCloud computingTask (project management)ScheduleDistributed computingBudget constraintMinificationMathematical optimizationMathematicsOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We study task scheduling and offloading in a cloud computing system with multiple users, where tasks have different processing times, release times, communication times, and weights. Each user may schedule a task locally or offload it to a finite-capacity shared cloud with heterogeneous processors by paying a price for the resource usage. Our work aims at identifying a task scheduling decision that minimizes the weighted sum completion time of all tasks, while satisfying the users' budget constraints. We propose an efficient solution framework for this NP-hard problem. As a first step, we solve an integer-relaxed problem and use a rounding technique to obtain an integer solution that is a constant factor approximation to the minimum weighted sum completion time. This solution violates the budget constraints, but the average budget violation decreases as the number of users increases. Thus, we develop a scalable Single-Task Unload for Budget Resolution (STUBR) algorithm, which resolves budget violations and orders the tasks to reduce the weighted sum completion time. Our trace-driven simulation shows that STUBR exhibits robust performance under practical scenarios and outperforms several alternatives.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.967
Threshold uncertainty score0.392

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.241
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 teacher head, 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

Citations3
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicIoT and Edge/Fog ComputingFrench-language works237,207