MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Dual-Side Scheduling for Radar Resource Management

2020· article· en· W3105354924 on OpenAlexaff
Zhen Qu, Zhen Ding, Peter W. Moo

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicScheduling and Optimization Algorithms
Canadian institutionsDefence Research and Development Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRadarComputer scienceScheduling (production processes)Real-time computingDynamic priority schedulingFair-share schedulingJob shop schedulingFixed-priority pre-emptive schedulingRate-monotonic schedulingScheduleSimulationMathematical optimizationMathematicsOperating systemTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A radar task scheduling method, dual-side scheduling (DSS), is proposed in this paper. In this method, the radar tasks are firstly received as an original sequence, then the time window for the task execution is separated into two sides. All the tasks at each side are shifting toward a separator, connected each other head-to-tail without dwell overlaps. The separator is placed at one of pre-set locations, and the random shifted start time (RSST) technique is applied in order to finalize the scheduling: the start time of each task is randomly shifted in its schedulable interval, then the DSS is respectively conducted at each separator. The RSST process is repeated many times, and the resulting schedule with the minimal cost among all attempts is the final solution. Over a broad range of task loading rate, the proposed method shows 1.5 to 6.2 times less costly than the earliest start time (EST), which is a widely used one-side scheduling method. A full cycle of DSS takes a few tens of milliseconds, short enough for real radar applications.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.203 · 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 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

Citations7
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicScheduling and Optimization AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207