MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Machine Learning Task Selection Method for Radar Resource Management (Poster)

2019· article· en· W3012491556 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicScheduling and Optimization Algorithms
Canadian institutionsDefence Research and Development Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceReinforcement learningScheduling (production processes)ScheduleRadarTask (project management)Artificial intelligenceReal-time computingMachine learningEngineeringOperations management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A radar task selection method is proposed through a machine learning approach in order to improve the scheduling performance. The method initially sorts the tasks according to the importance determined by their dwell times and priorities. More important tasks are selected first until the time window for the task execution is full. A set of reward value is defined based on the initial order of the tasks' importance, then the order of the tasks' importance is changed iteratively according to an award-punishment policy in a reinforcement learning process. Finally, the best group of selected tasks is passed to the earliest start time (EST) algorithm for scheduling. By doing so, the performance of the task scheduling is significantly enhanced. The cost of the schedule is about 2.1 to 5.6 times less, under different overloading situations, than the EST. The proposed method is also very time efficient. A full cycle that including the task selection and scheduling only takes less than 15 ms, thus it is practical.

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 categoriesnone
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 score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score0.338

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicScheduling and Optimization AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207