Optimizing Round Robin Scheduling with DBSCAN Clustering and Machine Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the intricate realm of operating systems, scheduling algorithms play a pivotal role in resource allocation and process completion, directly impacting overall system performance. The quest for an efficient and optimized scheduling algorithm is perpetual in the pursuit of optimal operating system utilization. The Round Robin algorithm, known for its robust time-sharing methodology, emerges as a stalwart in the scheduling context. Its versatility spans various domains, making it a preferred choice in both general-purpose computing environments and real-time systems. This study aims to elevate the performance of the Round Robin algorithm in terms of average waiting time and number of context switches without altering its core algorithmic structure. A novel approach is proposed, utilizing DBSCAN to group related processes and determine a more accurate and efficient time quantum. Departing from the conventional practice of using a single time quantum for the entire schedule, we divide the schedule into groups. The optimal time quantum for each group is derived through machine learning and deep learning algorithms, leveraging rigorous features extracted from the schedule. Notably, the LSTM model emerges as the top performer, achieving an impressive 97% accuracy. The proposed modified version consistently outshines its traditional counterpart. In 92% of cases, the modified version demonstrates superior performance in average waiting time while achieving a 96.5% improvement in context switching. Considering both metrics, the modified version showcases a notable enhancement in 87.8% of cases. This holistic assessment unveils a 5% reduction in average waiting time and a substantial 15% decrease in context switching, signifying a meaningful advancement in overall system performance.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".