MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409794809 · doi:10.61091/jcmcc127b-525

Research on Constructing Task Scheduling and Processing Models for Complex Data Sets Using Multi-Objective Optimization Algorithm

2025· article· en· W4409794809 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Combinatorial Mathematics and Combinatorial Computing · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRobotic Path Planning Algorithms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceScheduling (production processes)Task (project management)Optimization algorithmAlgorithmMathematical optimizationMathematicsEngineeringSystems engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the process of increasing the service capacity of digital infrastructure, the complex data generated by data terminals grows rapidly, which puts forward higher requirements for complex data task scheduling preprocessing.In this paper, based on particle swarm algorithm and improved artificial fish swarm algorithm, a hybrid particle swarm multi-objective optimization scheduling algorithm applicable to task scheduling and processing of complex data sets is designed.Then we design a reasonable expression method for the particle position and adaptation value algorithm in the multiobjective optimization algorithm, and put forward the pre-search strategy of the particle swarm algorithm to improve the search performance of the particles in the algorithm.Finally, the algorithm is equipped to construct a task scheduling and processing model for complex data sets.The results show that the hybrid particle swarm optimization algorithm established in this paper outperforms the comparison model in terms of load balancing and processing time, and is able to keep the system CPU utilization between 0.350-0.491 in the simulation experimental environment.It is also found that the application of the task scheduling and processing model in this paper can increase the power of photovoltaic and wind power generation in the grid system and reduce the operating cost of the grid system.This study provides an effective reference method for the processing of data and task scheduling in various types of complex systems, and brings new ideas and directions for research in related fields.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.538
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.127
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.262 · 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.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Combinatorial Mathematics and Combinatorial ComputingSame topicRobotic Path Planning AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207