MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Priority-based Task Scheduling in Dynamic Environments for Cognitive MFR via Transfer DRL

2023· article· en· W4381730562 on OpenAlexaff
Sunila Akbar, Ravi S. Adve, Zhen Ding, Peter W. Moo

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicReinforcement Learning in Robotics
Canadian institutionsDefence Research and Development CanadaUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceReinforcement learningScheduling (production processes)AdaptabilityTransfer of learningDynamic priority schedulingDistributed computingRadarTask analysisReal-time computingAdaptation (eye)Task (project management)Artificial intelligenceComputer networkEngineeringSystems engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A radar resource management module in a cognitive multifunction radar manages the resources by first prioritizing and then scheduling the tasks. Apart from scheduling the tasks, the task scheduler of a cognitive radar requires the scheduling to be adaptable to the changing environment. We formulate a gen-eral model for the distributions of task parameters, specifically, task priorities and delay tolerance, to ensure priority-based task scheduling. We develop the use of transfer learning (TL) within a deep reinforcement learning (DRL) framework to address the challenge of adaptability to a varying environment. Our approach builds on using a Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS) aided by a deep neural network (DNN). We show that TL allows accelerated training by transferring the policy learned by training the D NN-based MCTS on initial parameter distribution (environment) to the policy required for a new environment. Our results show that the high priority tasks are least delayed and dropped with the new formulation, whereas TL ensures the respective adaptation to the dynamic environment.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.911
Threshold uncertainty score0.614

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 head0.268
Teacher spread0.252 · 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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicReinforcement Learning in RoboticsFrench-language works237,207