Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 20 references

A Ranking Framework for Network Resource Allocation and Scheduling via Hypergraphs

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read This paper claims any hyper-structure's node-edge pairs can be partially ordered by semantic operators, making resource allocation a top-k ranking problem that approximates optimal solutions at lower latency.

desk verdict The central theorem is a definitional restatement and the approximation bound is vacuous, leaving only a routine scoring heuristic for resource allocation. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.01571 v1 pith:3CUXWHRB submitted 2025-06-02 cs.DS

Rajpreet Singh , Novak Boškov , Aditya Gudal , Manzoor A. Khan This is my paper
classification cs.DS MSC 05C6506A0668M2068R10
keywords hypergraphrankingresourceallocationtaskschedulingsemanticoperatorspartialorderdirectedacyclicgraphapproximationfactorText-to-SQL
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to establish that resource allocation and scheduling can be reframed as a ranking problem on hypergraphs: every resource-task pair receives a semantic relevance score from a bounded operator, and selecting the top-k resources per task gives near-optimal cost with far less computation than integer linear programming. Its fundamental theorem asserts that any hyper-structure admits a partial order on semantic entities and a map into directed acyclic graphs, so ranking can be realized by topological sorting while remaining complete on chains. The authors build a ranking algorithm on this ordering, prove an approximation bound from a triangle inequality on weighted metadata functions, and test the approach on network slicing, cloud job scheduling, and Text-to-SQL table selection.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the semantic entity $t=(v,e,\omega)$ in $V\times E\times \Omega$, scored by the bounded semantic operator $\otimes$ through the relevance ratio $\Upsilon(v,e)=(v\otimes e)/w(v)$. The operator is assumed to decompose one variable at a time as $(v\otimes e)=\sum_i \mu_i f_i(e)$, so the triangle inequality bounds the numerator by $M=\sum_i \mu_i |f_i(e)|$; because the paper postulates $\Upsilon>1$ by construction, each chosen resource contributes at most $M$ to the allocation cost, giving $\alpha\leq kM/C^*(e)$. A functor $G$ maps the resulting poset into the category of DAGs, so topological sorting is the ranking extension, and Zorn's Lemma supplies suprema and infima for chains of semantic entities.

What would settle it

Run the ranking on a network-slicing instance with the paper's metadata functions and record $\Upsilon(v,e)=(v\otimes e)/w(v)$ for every resource-task pair; any pair with $\Upsilon\leq 1$, or any metadata function that returns unbounded values, invalidates the by-construction bound that yields $\alpha\leq kM/C^*(e)$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that for any hyper-structure $H=(V,E,\Omega)$, there exists a partial order $\leq$ on the semantic entities $T=V\times E\times \Omega$ together with functors $F:T\to T$ and $G:T\to D$, where $D$ is the category of directed acyclic graphs, such that the order is semantically induced, preserved under composition, realizable as a DAG admitting topological sorting, and complete on chains via Zorn's Lemma. On top of this ordering, ranking entities by the relevance score $\Upsilon(v,e)=(v\otimes e)/w(v)$, with $\otimes$ a bounded operator expressed as a weighted sum $\sum_i \mu_i f_i(e)$ over metadata variables, selects the top-$k$ resources for a hyperedge with approximation factor $\alpha = C_{\mathrm{alg}}(e)/C^*(e) \leq kM/C^*(e)$. Simulations then show this ranking tracks ILP-optimal costs in network slicing and cloud scheduling while running much faster.

Load-bearing premise

The argument breaks if a semantic operator cannot be written as a weighted sum of bounded single-variable metadata functions, or if some resource-task pair has a relevance score divided by cost that is not greater than 1.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For each task, allocating resources becomes a sort of $n$ relevance scores rather than an ILP solve, so the per-task cost is $O(n\log n)$ in the number of resources.
  • Network slicing on graphs of up to 5000 nodes can be solved with costs close to ILP while avoiding the optimizer's latency.
  • Cloud job scheduling over hundreds of VMs can select best-fit machines using CPU, RAM, execution time, and cost simultaneously, reducing total allocation cost compared with Round Robin.
  • Text-to-SQL table selection becomes a ranking of concatenated table.column entities by similarity to the question, so relevant joins are captured without enumerating all possible joins.
  • The DAG property means any such ranking extends to a topological order, so precedence constraints are inherited automatically.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because the operator form $(v\otimes e)=\sum_i \mu_i f_i(e)$ is application-specific, the approximation bound is not a free guarantee; choosing the metadata functions and weights is itself the act of encoding the optimization objective.
  • The functorial structure suggests the ranking could be updated incrementally as tasks arrive, by maintaining a topological order of semantic entities; the paper does not test dynamic re-ranking, but it is a natural corollary.
  • A direct empirical check would compare the measured approximation factor $\alpha$ against the bound $kM/C^*(e)$ on the same random instances, to see whether the bound is actually tight or whether $\Upsilon>1$ is routinely violated in practice.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a hypergraph-based ranking framework for network resource allocation and scheduling. It defines a hyperstructure H=(V,E,Ω) with semantic operators, states a 'Computational Semantic Ordering' theorem asserting the existence of partial orders, DAG functors, chain completeness, and categorical limit preservation, and introduces an algorithm that ranks vertex-hyperedge pairs by a relevance score Υ(v,e)=(v⊗e)/w(v). The paper then derives an approximation factor α≤kM/C*(e), presents simulations comparing the approach with ILP, random allocation, and round-robin scheduling, and discusses applications to Text-to-SQL and implementational optimizations. The central claims are that the framework is mathematically rigorous, efficiently computable, and delivers near-optimal solutions; the paper also includes C++ code in the appendices.

Significance. The problem of scalable, expressive resource allocation and scheduling is relevant, and the idea of encoding task-resource semantics via hypergraph entities is attractive. If the theorem and approximation guarantee were valid, the framework could offer a useful unifying perspective. However, the theoretical content does not support the claims: Theorem 2.1 is stated without proof and relies on undefined notions and an incorrect use of Zorn's Lemma; the approximation bound in Section 2.3 reduces to a tautology and applies to every feasible k-selection, not just the algorithm's output; and the simulations lack error bars, run counts, and quantitative comparisons against the claimed baseline. The paper ships code snippets, but they are not sufficient to establish reproducibility. The core theoretical and empirical contributions would need substantial rework before the claims could be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.2, Theorem 2.1] The theorem is asserted without proof. The paragraph following the statement only paraphrases the theorem; it does not construct the partial order ≤ or the functor G, does not define what 'expansive' and 'contractive' mean for elements of C, and does not justify why sup(C) and inf(C) exist. The invocation of Zorn's Lemma is mathematically incorrect: Zorn's Lemma guarantees the existence of a maximal element when every chain has an upper bound; it does not imply that every chain has a supremum and infimum in the poset. Because the theorem is the stated foundation for the ranking property, the DAG property, and computational feasibility, this missing proof is load-bearing.
  2. [Section 2.3, approximation factor α] The approximation-factor derivation is vacuous. The rewrite w(v)=(v⊗e)/Υ(v,e) is a tautology given the definition Υ(v,e)=(v⊗e)/w(v). The subsequent bound uses |Σ μ_i f_i(e)|≤M and Υ(v*,e)>1, both of which are asserted rather than derived. The passage from f_i(v*,e) to f_i(e) silently assumes that the metadata functions do not depend on the vertex; if that is true, the relevance score depends only on the edge and the ranking reduces to inverse-cost sorting, while if it is false, the single-variable bound and the constant M are undefined. Moreover, granting the asserted premises, every vertex v satisfies w(v)≤M because |(v⊗e)|≤M and Υ>1, so any feasible k-subset, not only the algorithm's ranked selection, has total cost at most kM. Thus α≤kM/C*(e) is a bound on the numerator that applies to all algorithms and gives no comparison between C_alg(e) and C*; it cannot support the claimed near-optimality. The appendix example also does not establish Υ>1: the metadata functions are not linked to w(v), so for arbitrary costs the ratio (v⊗e)/w(v) can fall below 1.
  3. [Section 4.1 and 4.2, Figures 6–9] The simulation evidence is not statistically substantiated. Figures 6–9 show no error bars, confidence intervals, or numbers of independent runs. The claim that the method 'approaches the optimal results of ILP' is not quantified: no average gap, worst-case gap, or distribution is reported. Figure 8 plots a 'Theoretical bound from Section 2.3' that, as argued above, is vacuous and cannot serve as a benchmark. The scheduling experiment uses only three tasks, and the text asserts a trade-off against round-robin without presenting run-time measurements beyond the stated asymptotic complexity. These deficiencies prevent the reader from verifying the 'nearly optimal problem solutions at superior run time' claim in the abstract.
  4. [Sections 2.1 and 3, model properties and performance discussion] Several decisive properties are asserted without formal support. For example, Section 2.1 states that the framework 'ensures a rigorous yet flexible representation of constraints' and Section 3 states that 'the ranking-based projection method mathematically guarantees better approximation factors' and that 'the algorithm achieves a tighter bound than naive weight-based approaches,' but no theorem or derivation connects the free parameters (metadata weights μ_i, semantic operator ⊗, functions f_i, and the normalization Υ>1) to these conclusions. As written, the theoretical content reduces to definitions plus premises that are chosen per application; the claimed guarantees are therefore not established by the manuscript.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Section 1] There are typographical and grammatical errors, including 'we presents a refined' in Section 1 and 'where where' in Section 2; these should be corrected.
  2. [Section 2, problem statement] The objective is stated inconsistently: the text says the goal is to minimize total cost min Σ w(v_i), but the displayed selection problem is argmax_{S, |S|=k} Σ_{i∈S} v_i. The relationship between maximizing relevance and minimizing cost is not defined rigorously.
  3. [Appendices, Listing 3] The C++ code contains a syntax error: 'fff Hyperedge edge;' should be 'Hyperedge edge;'. Additionally, the tuple 'metadata_functions' is initialized before the functions 'custom_cpu_function' etc. are defined, so the code as printed would not compile without forward declarations.
  4. [Section 4.3] The Text-to-SQL application is described only qualitatively; no experiments or quantitative results are provided, so the claim that the hypergraph representation improves table retrieval is not supported.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 8.0 of 10

The §2.3 approximation guarantee is definitionally circular: since Υ(v,e)=(v⊗e)/w(v), the bound α≤kM/C* follows from a triangle inequality that applies to every k-subset, so it cannot certify that the hypergraph ranking is near-optimal; Theorem 2.1's ordering property is likewise a stipulated definition.

  1. self definitional [Section 2.3, 'The Approximation Bound' (definition of Υ and derivation of α)]
    "The relevance score Υ (𝑣,𝑒) of a resource 𝑣 in a task/hyperedge 𝑒 is defined as: Υ(v, e) = (𝑣⊗𝑒 ) /𝑤(𝑣). ... For a fixed vertex 𝑣∗ in the top-𝑘 ranked entities, the value (𝑣∗⊗𝑒)/Υ(𝑣∗,𝑒) = 1/Υ(𝑣∗,𝑒) Σ 𝜇𝑖𝑓𝑖(𝑣∗,𝑒)= 1/Υ(𝑣∗,𝑒) Σ 𝜇𝑖𝑓𝑖(𝑒) ... By construction Υ(𝑣∗,𝑒) will be a positive quantity greater than 1. For all the top-𝑘 vertices ... the cost is bounded as: Σ_{𝑣∈𝑒 alg}(𝑣⊗𝑒)/Υ(𝑣,𝑒) ≤𝑘.𝑀. Therefore, the approximation factor 𝛼 satisfies: 𝛼≤𝑘.𝑀.𝐶 ∗(𝑒)."

    Υ is defined as (v⊗e)/w(v), so the substitution w(v)=(v⊗e)/Υ(v,e) in the numerator of α is an identity true for every vertex, not a property of the ranking. With the asserted bounds |Σ μ_i f_i(e)|≤M and Υ>1, the same argument gives (v⊗e)/Υ(v,e)≤M for every vertex, so every feasible k-subset has cost ≤kM, not only the algorithm's selection e_alg. Therefore α≤kM/C* is a universal bound that holds for any algorithm whatever; it does not compare C_alg(e) with C*(e) and cannot certify near-optimality. The 'approximation guarantee' reduces, by the paper's own definitions, to a triangle inequality on the scoring formula, and the asserted premise Υ>1 is not derived (the appendix's f_i are bounded in [0,1]-type ranges, so score/cost can be below 1).

  2. self definitional [Section 2.2, Theorem 2.1 (Computational Semantic Ordering), property (1)]
    "(1) (Ordering Property) For any 𝜏1,𝜏 2∈𝑇 ,𝜏1≤𝜏 2 if and only if: 𝜔1(𝑣1,𝑒 1)⊑𝜔 2(𝑣2,𝑒 2) where ⊑ is a semantic ordering induced by the operator."

    The Ordering Property stipulates τ1≤τ2 iff ω1(v1,e1)⊑ω2(v2,e2), where ⊑ is itself only described as 'a semantic ordering induced by the operator'. This makes the existence of the partial order a restatement of the definition of ⊑: the paper neither proves that the induced relation is a partial order nor constructs it from the allocation objective. Consequently Theorem 2.1's first assertion is a named definition, not a derived structural result, and the later ranking claims inherit whatever properties are put into ⊑.

full rationale

The central theoretical claim of the paper, the approximation bound in Section 2.3, is not algorithm-specific. Because the relevance score is defined as Υ(v,e)=(v⊗e)/w(v), rewriting w(v) as (v⊗e)/Υ(v,e) is a tautology that holds for every vertex. Given the two asserted premises (|Σ μ_i f_i(e)|≤M and Υ>1), the same bounding argument applies to any vertex and hence to any feasible k-selection, so α≤kM/C* is a universal bound that holds regardless of which k resources are chosen. It therefore cannot distinguish the hypergraph ranking from arbitrary selection and provides no evidence of near-optimality. The derivation additionally replaces f_i(v*,e) with f_i(e), changing the claimed semantics; if scores truly do not depend on the vertex, ranking collapses to inverse-cost sorting, and if they do, the single-variable bound M is not defined as stated. Theorem 2.1's Ordering Property similarly defines the partial order as the semantic ordering ⊑, making the existence claim a stipulated definition rather than a derived theorem; its completeness clause invokes Zorn's lemma with undefined 'expansive/contractive' conditions, another unproved input. The simulations in Section 4 do compare costs and latencies against ILP and other baselines, but they do not repair the vacuous theoretical bound. I find no self-citation chain or external-benchmark circularity; the circularity is internal and definitional, concentrated in Section 2.3.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The framework's central results depend on hand-chosen scoring weights and functions, an unproven theorem, and multiple undefined semantic constructs. The approximation bound follows from the definition of the score and a triangle inequality rather than from an optimality argument.

free parameters (3)
  • metadata weights μ_i
    Weights for each metadata variable in the semantic operator; specified per application in Section 2.3 without a fitting procedure.
  • semantic operator ⊗ and metadata functions f_i
    The operator and per-metadata functions are chosen per domain (e.g., custom_cpu_function in Appendix), with no general prescription or justification.
  • score normalization Υ>1
    The approximation bound requires Υ(v,e)>1 'by construction' (Section 2.3); this is an imposed condition on the scoring, not derived.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Zorn's Lemma guarantees existence of sup/inf for chains with expansive/contractive operators
    Invoked in Theorem 2.1(3); the application is unjustified because Zorn's Lemma does not imply chain-completeness, and the expansive/contractive conditions are not defined.
  • domain assumption Semantic ordering ⊑ is well-defined and captured by the chosen operators
    The ordering property in Theorem 2.1 is true by definition of ⊑; no independent construction is given.
  • domain assumption Hypergraph representation of resource allocation: nodes are resources, hyperedges are tasks
    Section 2 assumes this mapping without loss-of-generality argument.
  • domain assumption The bounded operator ⊗ yields finite, well-defined scores
    Stated in Section 2 but no formal boundedness proof for the chosen functions.
  • ad hoc to paper Metadata functions f_i are single-variable and capture semantic meaning
    Section 2.3 assumes f_i(e) with no dependence on the vertex, contradicting the earlier definition f_i(v,e); the collapse is not justified.
invented entities (2)
  • Hyperstructure H=(V,E,Ω)
    purpose: Formal container for hypergraph with semantic operators; basis of Theorem 2.1.
    Introduced as a new term; no empirical handle beyond the paper's own framework.
  • Semantic operators Ω and semantic ordering ⊑
    purpose: Define the partial order on semantic entities; the core of the claimed theorem.
    The operators are left unspecified and vary across applications; no falsifiable prediction.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Ranking Framework for Network Resource Allocation and Scheduling via Hypergraphs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3CUXWHRB

@misc{pith2026250601571,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Ranking Framework for Network Resource Allocation and Scheduling via Hypergraphs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3CUXWHRB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.01571}
}
read the original abstract

Resource allocation and scheduling are a common problem in various distributed systems. Although widely studied, the state-of-the-art solutions either do not scale or lack the expressive power to capture the most complex instances of the problem. To that end, we present a mathematical framework for hypergraph ranking and analysis, unifying graph theory, lattice theory, and semantic analysis. In our fundamental theorem, we prove the existence of partial order on entities of hypergraphs, extending traditional hypergraph analysis by introducing semantic operators that capture relationships between vertices and hyperedges. Within the boundaries of our framework, we introduce an algorithm to rank the node-hyperedge pairs with respect to the captured semantics. The strength of our approach lies in its applicability to complex ranking problems that can be modeled as hypergraphs, including network resource allocation, task scheduling, and table selection in Text-to-SQL. Through simulations, we demonstrate that our framework delivers nearly optimal problem solutions at a superior run time performance.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.01571 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Hypergraph ranking to allocate resources [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Existence of a Poset in Hypergraph • sup(𝐶) exists if any 𝜔 ∈ 𝐶 is expansive (by Zorn’s Lemma) • inf(𝐶) exists if any 𝜔 ∈ 𝐶 is contractive (by Zorn’s Lemma) • Both operations are computationally realizable through categorical (co)limits (4) (Functorial Property) The family of functors 𝐹 satis￾fies: • Preserves both partial and induced total orders • Respects operator semantics through categorical com￾position • Main… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Hypergraph based Ranking Algorithm. From the expression above, we can observe that we need to bound ∑︁ 𝑣∈𝑒alg (𝑣 ⊗ 𝑒)/Υ(𝑣, 𝑒). For a fixed vertex 𝑣 ∗ in the top-𝑘 ranked entities, the value (𝑣 ∗ ⊗ 𝑒) Υ(𝑣 ∗ , 𝑒) = 1 Υ(𝑣 ∗ , 𝑒) ∑︁ 𝑖∈𝐼 𝜇𝑖𝑓𝑖(𝑣 ∗ , 𝑒) = 1 Υ(𝑣 ∗ , 𝑒) ∑︁ 𝑖∈𝐼 𝜇𝑖𝑓𝑖(𝑒) where 𝑖 runs over the index set 𝐼 covering all the metadata variables of the vertex 𝑣 ∗ , 𝜇𝑖 are the weights for the metadata variable specifi… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The comparison between various algorithms. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Illustration of the core domain in end-to-end [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Round Robin versus Hypergraph Ranking where (𝑣 ⊗ 𝑒) denotes the priority/requirement of node for the task attributes, and𝑤(𝑣) represents the total resource weight. The ranking process ensures that the most cost￾effective and prioritized node is chosen, minimizing the t…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Latency of ILP versus Hypergraph Ranking [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Quality of Approximation for Hypergraph Ranking-based approach (our) and Random Allocation. Theoretical bound from Section 2.3. and hyperedges can be chosen in such a way that the pri￾orities, conflict resolution, deadlocks, etc. are embedded in the ranking. The releva…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Illustration of hypergraph ranking in Text [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_10.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

20 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Is table retrieval a solved problem? exploring join-aware multi-table retrieval, 2024

    Peter Baile Chen, Yi Zhang, and Dan Roth. Is table retrieval a solved problem? exploring join-aware multi-table retrieval, 2024

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Cellular network traffic scheduling with deep reinforcement learning

    Sandeep Chinchali, Pan Hu, Tianshu Chu, Manu Sharma, Manu Bansal, Rakesh Misra, Marco Pavone, and Sachin Katti. Cellular network traffic scheduling with deep reinforcement learning. InProceedings of the Thirty-Second AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Thirtieth Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference and Eighth AAAI Sympo...

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    Paths, trees, and flowers.Canadian Journal of Mathe- matics, 17:449–467, 1965

    Jack Edmonds. Paths, trees, and flowers.Canadian Journal of Mathe- matics, 17:449–467, 1965

    work page 1965

  4. [4]

    Ai-based robust resource allocation in end-to-end network slicing under demand and csi uncer- tainties, 02 2022

    Amir Gharehgoli, Ali Nouruzi, Nader Mokari, Paeiz Azmi, Moham- mad reza Javan, and Eduard Jorswieck. Ai-based robust resource allocation in end-to-end network slicing under demand and csi uncer- tainties, 02 2022

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Dynamic resource allocation for virtual machine migration optimization using machine learning, 2024

    Yulu Gong, Jiaxin Huang, Bo Liu, Jingyu Xu, Binbin Wu, and Yifan Zhang. Dynamic resource allocation for virtual machine migration optimization using machine learning, 2024

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Advanced network design for 6g: Leveraging graph theory and slicing for edge stability.Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory, 138:103029, 2025

    Mantisha Gupta and Rakesh Kumar Jha. Advanced network design for 6g: Leveraging graph theory and slicing for edge stability.Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory, 138:103029, 2025

    work page 2025

  7. [7]

    Skill ranking of researchers via hypergraph.PeerJ Prepr., 7:e27480, 2019

    Xiangjie Kong, Lei Liu, Shuo Yu, Andong Yang, Xiaomei Bai, and Bo Xu. Skill ranking of researchers via hypergraph.PeerJ Prepr., 7:e27480, 2019

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    Ioannidis, Huzefa Rangwala, and Christos Faloutsos

    Meng-Chieh Lee, Qi Zhu, Costas Mavromatis, Zhen Han, Soji Adeshina, Vassilis N. Ioannidis, Huzefa Rangwala, and Christos Faloutsos. Hyb- grag: Hybrid retrieval-augmented generation on textual and relational knowledge bases, 2024

    work page 2024

Show all 20 references
  1. [9]

    Random assignment method based on genetic algorithms and its application in resource allocation.Expert Systems with Applications, 39(15):12213–12219, 2012

    Fachao Li, Li Da Xu, Chenxia Jin, and Hong Wang. Random assignment method based on genetic algorithms and its application in resource allocation.Expert Systems with Applications, 39(15):12213–12219, 2012

    2012

  2. [10]

    An end-to-end network slicing framework for 5g wireless communi- cation systems, 2016

    Qian Li, Geng Wu, Apostolos Papathanassiou, and Udayan Mukherjee. An end-to-end network slicing framework for 5g wireless communi- cation systems, 2016

    2016

  3. [11]

    Deep-learning- based wireless resource allocation with application to vehicular net- works.Proceedings of the IEEE, 108(2):341–356, 2020

    Le Liang, Hao Ye, Guanding Yu, and Geoffrey Ye Li. Deep-learning- based wireless resource allocation with application to vehicular net- works.Proceedings of the IEEE, 108(2):341–356, 2020

    2020

  4. [12]

    Resource allocation optimization based on mixed integer linear programming in the multi-cloudlet environment.IEEE Access, 6:24533–24542, 2018

    Li Liu and Qi Fan. Resource allocation optimization based on mixed integer linear programming in the multi-cloudlet environment.IEEE Access, 6:24533–24542, 2018

    2018

  5. [13]

    Deep reinforcement learn- ing for end-to-end network slicing: Challenges and solutions.IEEE Network, 37(2):222–228, 2023

    Qiang Liu, Nakjung Choi, and Tao Han. Deep reinforcement learn- ing for end-to-end network slicing: Challenges and solutions.IEEE Network, 37(2):222–228, 2023

    2023

  6. [14]

    André Perdigão, José Quevedo, and Rui L. Aguiar. Automating 5g network slice management for industrial applications.Computer Com- munications, 229:107991, 2025

    2025

  7. [15]

    Measurement-based resource allocation and control in data centers: A survey, 2024

    Diana Andreea Popescu. Measurement-based resource allocation and control in data centers: A survey, 2024

    2024

  8. [16]

    Resource allocation for network slicing in open ran: A hierarchical learning approach.IEEE Transactions on Cognitive Communications and Networking, PP:1–1, 01 2025

    Kai Qiao, Hongchao Wang, Weiting Zhang, Dong Yang, Yuming Zhang, and Ning Zhang. Resource allocation for network slicing in open ran: A hierarchical learning approach.IEEE Transactions on Cognitive Communications and Networking, PP:1–1, 01 2025

    2025

  9. [17]

    Zhao, Gennady Shaikhet, and Amirhossein Asgharnia

    Ahmed Sid-Ali, Ioannis Lambadaris, Yiqiang Q. Zhao, Gennady Shaikhet, and Amirhossein Asgharnia. Online optimization for net- work resource allocation and comparison with reinforcement learning techniques, 2023

    2023

  10. [18]

    Rat-sql: Relation-aware schema encoding and linking for text-to-sql parsers, 2021

    Bailin Wang, Richard Shin, Xiaodong Liu, Oleksandr Polozov, and Matthew Richardson. Rat-sql: Relation-aware schema encoding and linking for text-to-sql parsers, 2021

    2021

  11. [19]

    Spider: A large-scale human-labeled dataset for complex and cross-domain semantic parsing and text-to- SQL task

    Tao Yu, Rui Zhang, Kai Yang, Michihiro Yasunaga, Dongxu Wang, Zifan Li, James Ma, Irene Li, Qingning Yao, Shanelle Roman, Zilin Zhang, and Dragomir Radev. Spider: A large-scale human-labeled dataset for complex and cross-domain semantic parsing and text-to- SQL task. In Ellen ...

    2018

  12. [20]

    Node␣Scores:\n

    Haotian Zheng, Kangming Xu, Mingxuan Zhang, Hao Tan, and Hanzhe Li. Efficient resource allocation in cloud computing environments using ai-driven predictive analytics.Applied and Computational Engi- neering, 2024. 7 Appendix Listing 3: Parallel Hypergraph Ranking Implementa- t...

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.