TempoNet: Slack-Quantized Transformer-Guided Reinforcement Scheduler for Adaptive Deadline-Centric Real-Time Dispatchs
Organizations: Independent Researcher
Abstract
Real-time schedulers must reason about tight deadlines under strict compute budgets. We present TempoNet, a reinforcement learning scheduler that pairs a permutation-invariant Transformer with a deep Q-approximation. An Urgency Tokenizer discretizes temporal slack into learnable embeddings, stabilizing value learning and capturing deadline proximity. A latency-aware sparse attention stack with blockwise top-k selection and locality-sensitive chunking enables global reasoning over unordered task sets with near-linear scaling and sub-millisecond inference. A multicore mapping layer converts contextualized Q-scores into processor assignments through masked-greedy selection or differentiable matching. Extensive evaluations on industrial mixed-criticality traces and large multiprocessor settings show consistent gains in deadline fulfillment over analytic schedulers and neural baselines, together with improved optimization stability. Diagnostics include sensitivity analyses for slack quantization, attention-driven policy interpretation, hardware-in-the-loop and kernel micro-benchmarks, and robustness under stress with simple runtime mitigations; we also report sample-efficiency benefits from behavioral-cloning pretraining and compatibility with an actor-critic variant without altering the inference pipeline. These results establish a practical framework for Transformer-based decision making in high-throughput real-time scheduling.
Figures & tables
| Scheduling Approach | Mean | Median | Std. Dev. | Min | Max |
| PPO [ 30 ] | 0.68 | 0.82 | 0.31 | 0.00 | 0.98 |
| A3C [ 31 ] | 0.71 | 0.84 | 0.29 | 0.01 | 0.99 |
| FF-DQN | 0.74 | 0.86 | 0.26 | 0.00 | 1.00 |
| Rainbow DQN [ 32 ] | 0.78 | 0.87 | 0.25 | 0.00 | 1.00 |
| Offline RL [ 33 ] | 0.79 | 0.84 | 0.27 | 0.01 | 0.98 |
| GraSP-RL [ 34 ] | 0.80 | 0.85 | 0.23 | 0.02 | 0.99 |
| Heads | Hit Rate | Std Dev | Gain |
| 2 | 80.3% | 0.31 | -5.5% |
| 4 | 85.0 % | 0.27 | 0.0% |
| 6 | 84.7% | 0.33 | -0.3% |
| 8 | 84.9% | 0.35 | -0.1% |
| Layers | Hit Rate | Latency | Hit |
| 1 | 76.2% | 0.42ms | -8.8% |
| 2 | 85.0 % | 0.51ms | 0.0% |
| 3 | 86.1% | 0.71ms | +1.1% |
| 4 | 85.7% | 0.94ms | +0.7% |
| Method | Tasks | Success Rate | Time (s) |
| MHQISSO (EDF) | 100 | 97.8% | 20.4 |
| DRL-Based [ 41 ] | 100 | 97.5% | 9.0 |
| LSTM-PPO [ 42 ] | 100 | 97.6% | 7.5 |
| ENF-S [ 43 ] | 100 | 97.8% | 8.0 |
| PSO-Based [ 44 ] | 100 | 97.0% | 10.2 |
| Transformer-based [ 11 ] | 100 | 97.9% | 8.7 |
| Method | PITMD (%) | ART | Time (s) |
| DIOS | 87.28 | 16.72 | – |
| FCFS | 9.83 | 21.20 | – |
| EDF [ 45 ] | 20.81 | 20.68 | – |
| Mo-QIGA [ 46 ] | 83.21 | 15.11 | 0.48 |
| HQIGA [ 46 ] | 85.70 | 16.34 | 0.52 |
| Transformer-based [ 35 ] | 88.00 | 14.20 | 0.45 |
| Methodology | Compliance Rate | Improvement |
| Rate Monotonic (RM) | 11.67% | – |
| Earliest Deadline First (EDF) | 11.67% | – |
| Feedforward DQN (FF-DQN) | 71.43% | – |
| TempoNet (Proposed) | 79.00% | +7.57% |
Appendix figures & tables19 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Variant | Input type | Hit Rate (%) | vs TempoNet | Training |
| FF-DQN-cont | scalar slack (raw) | |||
| FF-DQN-norm | scalar slack (z-score) | |||
| FF-DQN-MLP | scalar slack + 2-layer MLP | |||
| TempoNet | quantised + embedding | — | ||
| TempoNet w/o UT | continuous slack (concat) |
| Method | Pattern | Latency @600 (ms) | Memory traffic | Scheduling-specific? |
| Explicit Sparse Transformer [ 18 ] | static column-drop | No | ||
| Efficient Sparse Attention [ 49 ] | learned block-drop | No | ||
| TempoNet | deadline-aware block + chunk top- | Yes |
| Quartile | Mean Deadline (ms) | Meet Rate (%) |
| Q1 (shortest) | ||
| Q2 | ||
| Q3 | ||
| Q4 (longest) | ||
| KS-test -value | 0.18 (no bias) | |
| Method | Avg. Response Time (ms) | Deadline Meet Rate (%) |
| SRPT (preemptive, optimal mean) [ 50 ] | ||
| TempoNet (ours) |
| Mapping | PITMD (%) | ART (ms) | Inference (µs) | Comment |
| A: masked-greedy | 90.1 | 12.4 | 420 | default, sub-ms |
| B: Sinkhorn | 90.6 | 12.1 | 860 | +0.5 pp, 2 latency |
| Reward | Compliance (%) | 95th lateness (ms) | Train stability | Energy index |
| Binary | 89.2 | 18.3 | 0.27 | 1.18 |
| R1 (lateness penalty) | 89.1 | 13.1 | 0.29 | 1.15 |
| R2 (early bonus) | 89.5 | 15.0 | 0.26 | 1.21 |
| R3 (slack-sensitive) | 90.4 | 11.7 | 0.23 | 1.09 |
| R4 (risk-aware) | 90.1 | 12.4 | 0.24 | 1.12 |
| R5 (energy-aware) | 88.7 | 14.2 | 0.25 | 1.00 |
| Task-set | Encoder (µs) | Mapping (µs) | End-to-end (µs) | Max N@1 ms |
| 64 | 82 5 | 18 2 | 105 7 | 1,050 |
| 200 | 145 8 | 35 3 | 185 10 | 720 |
| 600 | 298 12 | 71 5 | 375 17 | 430 |
| Adaptation | 0-shot | 5-ep | 10-ep | 20-ep | Oracle |
| Compliance (%) | 84.1 1.2 | 87.3 0.8 | 88.9 0.5 | 89.2 0.4 | 90.0 0.3 |
| Oracle gap (%) | 6.6 | 3.0 | 1.2 | 0.9 | 0.0 |
| Binning | Hit rate (%) | ART (ms) | Train ( ) | |
| 8 | uniform | 83.5 1.1 | 13.8 | 3.9 |
| 32 | uniform | 86.4 0.9 | 12.9 | 2.2 |
| 128 | uniform | 87.0 0.8 | 12.4 | 1.7 |
| 128 | log-spaced | 87.2 0.7 | 12.3 | 1.6 |
| 128 | data-driven* | 87.3 0.6 | 12.2 | 1.5 |
| *K-means on empirical slack distribution, . | ||||
| Cores | Util | Zero-shot (%) | 5-ep (%) | Oracle (%) | Gap (%) |
| 4 | 0.6 | 88.9 | 89.4 | 89.6 | 0.7 |
| 4 | 0.9 | 85.1 | 86.8 | 87.2 | 2.1 |
| 16 | 0.6 | 89.3 | 89.7 | 90.0 | 0.7 |
| 16 | 0.9 | 86.0 | 87.5 | 88.1 | 2.1 |
| 32 | 1.1 | 82.7 | 85.9 | 87.4 | 4.7 |
| Dense full attention | . This is the worst-case cost when every query attends to all keys. |
| Block Top-k with fixed block size and budget | . Holds when and . |
| Block Top-k with | . Average-case analytic estimate under chunking. |
| Measured (optimized CUDA kernel, finite range) | (empirical fit). Observed when kernel fusion and symmetric sparsity reduce constants. |
| Initialization | Episodes to 85% compliance | Final compliance (%) | Wall-clock hours |
| Random initialization | |||
| BC warm-start (pilot) |
| Method | Compliance (%) | 95th lateness (ms) | Peak memory (MB) |
| TempoNet | |||
| GNN-based RL [ 51 ] | |||
| EDF [ 47 ] | — | ||
| SRPT [ 50 ] | — |
| Pair | Action agreement | Interpretation |
| TempoNet vs. EDF | 68% | leans toward shorter jobs relative to EDF |
| TempoNet vs. SRPT | 71% | gives additional weight to deadlines vs. SRPT |
| TempoNet vs. distilled rule | 91% | closely matched by a single weighted rule |
Real-Time Scheduling
Real-time scheduling allocates processors, accelerators, and network resources so tasks meet timing deadlines under workload and resource constraints.
See all 30 papers