Towards Multi-Resource Fair Allocation with Placement Constraints
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Multi-resource fair schedulers have been widely implemented in compute clusters to provide service isolation guarantees. Existing multi-resource sharing policies, notably Dominant Resource Fairness (DRF) and its variants, are designed for unconstrained jobs that can run on all machines in a cluster. However, an increasing number of datacenter jobs specify placement constraints and can only run on a particular class of machines meeting specific hardware/software requirements (e.g., GPUs or a particular kernel version). We show that directly extending existing policies to constrained jobs either compromises isolation guarantees or allows users to gain more resources by deceiving the scheduler. It remains unclear how multi-resource fair sharing is defined and achieved in the presence of placement constraints. We address this open problem by a new sharing policy, called Task Share Fairness (TSF), that provides provable isolation guarantees and is strategy-proof against gaming the allocation policy. TSF is shown to be envy-free and Pareto optimal as well.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it