Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This study introduces a novel open-source benchmark platform for evaluating Continuous Multi-Mode Scheduling (CMMS) algorithms in heterogeneous edge clusters, addressing the challenges of fair comparison due to varying configurations and workloads. By implementing a unified controller interface and a closed-loop workload driver, the authors evaluate six scheduling controllers across multiple cluster setups and load conditions, revealing significant performance variability. The key finding indicates that a deep reinforcement-learning algorithm, while effective under light loads, performs poorly under heavy loads compared to simpler heuristic methods, highlighting the importance of context in algorithm selection.
Controller performance in edge clusters can swing dramatically based on workload intensity, with a deep reinforcement-learning approach losing to a simple heuristic by 29 percentage points under heavy load.
Modern Artificial Intelligence (AI) workloads deployed across the heterogeneous tiers of an edge--cloud continuum must satisfy multi-dimensional Service Level Objectives (SLOs) over latency, throughput, and output quality. For each incoming task, the scheduler picks both a target node and a processing mode (e.g., full or reduced inference precision). We call this class of problems \emph{Continuous Multi-Mode Scheduling} (CMMS). Comparing CMMS algorithms fairly is difficult because prior studies typically evaluate each controller in its own stack, under a single workload, and without reporting per-decision overhead. To close these gaps, we present an open source benchmark platform that features (i) a unified controller interface, (ii) a closed-loop workload driver covering multiple workload patterns, and (iii) dual-metric SLO scoring that reports raw SLO (overall compliance) and steady-state SLO (compliance during stable operation) separately. Running six controllers across five cluster configurations and two load regimes (424 episodes), we find that controller rankings are strongly configuration-dependent: a deep reinforcement-learning winner under light workloads loses to a rule-based heuristic by nearly 29 percentage points once load intensifies, at roughly 500$\times$ the per-decision operational overhead. We further show that separating raw from steady-state SLOs exposes switching costs that a single aggregate score would otherwise conflate.
