Burst-Aware Time-Triggered Flow Scheduling With Enhanced Multi-CQF in Time-Sensitive Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Deterministic transmission guarantee in time-sensitive networks (TSN) relies on queue models (such as CQF, TAS, ATS) and resource scheduling algorithms. Thanks to its ease of use, the CQF queue model has been widely adopted. However, the existing resource scheduling algorithms of CQF model only focus on periodic time-triggered (TT) flows without consideration of bursting flows. Considering that the bursting flows often carry high-priority data in real systems, in this paper we investigate the mixed-flow (i.e., TT and bursting flows) scheduling problem in CQF-based TSN aiming to maximize the number of schedulable flows and system load balance while satisfying the deterministic demands of delay, jitter, and reliability for both TT and bursting flows. Unfortunately, it is challenging to schedule the mixed flows with the original CQF model because of the huge difference between TT and bursting flows. To resolve this problem, we firstly design an enhanced Multi-CQF model to satisfy the basic demands of bursting flows sent at any time without affecting the deterministic transmission of TT flows. Given the complexity of mixed-flow scheduling and the proposed queue model, it is difficult for traditional algorithms to fully utilize network resources. Thus, we further propose a uline time-correlated uline DRL uline resource uline scheduling (TimeDRS) algorithm to optimize the resource allocation. TimeDRS can be extended to other time-related resource scheduling scenarios, such as TDMA-based scheduling. Experimental results demonstrate that our proposed approaches can greatly reduce frame loss and end-to-end latency for bursting flows, and well balance runtime and schedulability compared with state-of-the-art benchmarks.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".