Scheduling in the Dark (Improved Result)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We considered non-clairvoyant multiprocessor scheduling of jobs with arbitrary arrival times and changing execution characteristics. The problem has been studied extensively when either the jobs all arrive at time zero, or when all the jobs are fully parallelizable, or when the scheduler has considerable knowledge about the jobs. This paper considers for the first time this problem without any of these three restrictions yet when our algorithm is given more resources than the adversary. We provide new upper and lower bound techniques applicable in this more difficult scenario. The results are of both theoretical and practical interest. In our model, a job can arrive at any arbitrary time and its execution characteristics can change through the life of the job from being anywhere from fully parallelizable to completely sequential. We assume that the scheduler has no knowledge about the jobs except for knowing when a job arrives and knowing when it completes. (This is why we say that the scheduler is completely in the dark.) Given all this, we prove that the scheduler algorithm Equi-partition, though simple, performs within a constant factor as well as the optimal scheduler as long as it is given at least twice as many processors. More over, we prove that if none of the jobs are "strictly " fully parallelizable, then Equi-partition performs competitively with no extra processors. *Author is supported by NSERC Canada. 1 We also consider other variations: faster processors; fewer preemptions; and a wider range of execution characteristics. This improved version improves the journal version [7] in two ways. The first way allows the optimal scheduler to complete the fully parallelizable work independently from the sequential work. This extra freedom is needed in [9, 11,?]. The second improvement is a tightening of the competitive ratio from 2s(s-2) to 1 + O ( pss-2).
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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".