It is well known that size-based scheduling policies, which take into account job size (i.e., the time it takes to run them), can perform very desirably in terms of both response time and fairness. Unfortunately, the requirement of knowing a priori the exact job size is a major obstacle which is frequently insurmountable in practice. Often, it is possible to get a coarse estimation of job size, but unfortunately analytical results with inexact job sizes are challenging to obtain, and simulation-based studies show that several size-based algorithm are severely impacted by job estimation errors. For example, Shortest Remaining Processing Time (SRPT), which yields optimal mean sojourn time when job sizes are known exactly, can drastically underperform when it is fed inexact job sizes. Some algorithms have been proposed to better handle size estimation errors, but they are somewhat complex and this makes their analysis challenging. We consider Shortest Processing Time (SPT), a simplification of SRPT that skips the update of "remaining" job size and results in a preemptive algorithm that simply schedules the job with the shortest estimated processing time. When job size is inexact, SPT performs comparably to the best known algorithms in the presence of errors, while being definitely simpler. In this work, SPT is evaluated through simulation, showing near-optimal performance in many cases, with the hope that its simplicity can open the way to analytical evaluation even when inexact inputs are considered.
In the literature, some systems use job size estimation to drive scheduling. For batch computation systems, a part of jobs is run to estimate running time @cite_0 @cite_15 ; web servers use file size to estimate serving time @cite_5 . More elaborate approaches predict the size of database queries @cite_2 , MapReduce jobs @cite_24 @cite_29 @cite_20 , deep learning training @cite_16 and the length of call-center calls @cite_27 : approaches such as these can be used to inform size-based schedulers.
@cite_29 @cite_0 @cite_24 @cite_27 @cite_2 @cite_5 @cite_15 @cite_16 @cite_20
2623179677 2002472616 1972223681 1986166139 2090259550 2798515322 2241020437
Scholars are increasingly citing electronic “web references” which are not preserved in libraries or full text archives. WebCite is a new standard for citing web references. To “webcite” a document involves archiving the cited Web page through www.webcitation.org and citing the WebCite permalink instead of (or in addition to) the unstable live Web page. This journal has amended its “instructions for authors” accordingly, asking authors to archive cited Web pages before submitting a manuscript. Almost 200 other journals are already using the system. We discuss the rationale for WebCite, its technology, and how scholars, editors, and publishers can benefit from the service. Citing scholars initiate an archiving process of all cited Web references, ideally before they submit a manuscript. Authors of online documents and websites which are expected to be cited by others can ensure that their work is permanently available by creating an archived copy using WebCite and providing the citation information including the WebCite link on their Web document(s). Editors should ask their authors to cache all cited Web addresses (Uniform Resource Locators, or URLs) “prospectively” before submitting their manuscripts to their journal. Editors and publishers should also instruct their copyeditors to cache cited Web material if the author has not done so already. Finally, WebCite can process publisher submitted “citing articles” (submitted for example as eXtensible Markup Language [XML] documents) to automatically archive all cited Web pages shortly before or on publication. Finally, WebCite can act as a focussed crawler, caching retrospectively references of already published articles. Copyright issues are addressed by honouring respective Internet standards (robot exclusion files, no-cache and no-archive tags). Long-term preservation is ensured by agreements with libraries and digital preservation organizations. The resulting WebCite Index may also have applications for research assessment exercises, being able to measure the impact of Web services and published Web documents through access and Web citation metrics. @PARASPLIT [J Med Internet Res 2005;7(5):e60] Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to suggest an alternative to the widely used Times Cited criterion for analysing citation networks. The approach involves taking account of the natures of the papers that cite a given paper, so as to differentiate between papers that attract the same number of citations.Design methodology approach – ArticleRank is an algorithm that has been derived from Google's PageRank algorithm to measure the influence of journal articles. ArticleRank is applied to two datasets – a citation network based on an early paper on webometrics, and a self‐citation network based on the 19 most cited papers in the Journal of Documentation – using citation data taken from the Web of Knowledge database.Findings – ArticleRank values provide a different ranking of a set of papers from that provided by the corresponding Times Cited values, and overcomes the inability of the latter to differentiate between papers with the same numbers of citations. The difference in rankings between Times Cited ... In a document network such as a citation network of scientific documents, web-logs, etc., the content produced by authors exhibits their interest in certain topics. In addition some authors influence other authors' interests. In this work, we propose to model the influence of cited authors along with the interests of citing authors. Moreover, we hypothesize that apart from the citations present in documents, the context surrounding the citation mention provides extra topical information about the cited authors. However, associating terms in the context to the cited authors remains an open problem. We propose novel document generation schemes that incorporate the context while simultaneously modeling the interests of citing authors and influence of the cited authors. Our experiments show significant improvements over baseline models for various evaluation criteria such as link prediction between document and cited author, and quantitatively explaining unseen text. A new form of document coupling called co-citation is defined as the frequency with which two documents are cited together. The co-citation frequency of two scientific papers can be determined by comparing lists of citing documents in the Science Citation Index and counting identical entries. Networks of co-cited papers can be generated for specific scientific specialties, and an example is drawn from the literature of particle physics. Co-citation patterns are found to differ significantly from bibliographic coupling patterns, but to agree generally with patterns of direct citation. Clusters of co-cited papers provide a new way to study the specialty structure of science. They may provide a new approach to indexing and to the creation of SDI profiles.