MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1491406116

New approaches to optimization and utility elicitation in autonomic computing

2005· article· en· W1491406116 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDistributed and Parallel Computing Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRegretComputer scienceHeuristicsProvisioningAutonomic computingMathematical optimizationOptimization problemResource allocationCloud computingMachine learningMathematicsAlgorithm
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Autonomic (self-managing) computing systems face the critical problem of resource allocation to different computing elements. Adopting a recent model, we view the problem of provisioning re-sources as involving utility elicitation and opti-mization to allocate resources given imprecise util-ity information. In this paper, we propose a new algorithm for regret-based optimization that per-forms significantly faster than that proposed in ear-lier work. We also explore new regret-based elic-itation heuristics that are able to find near-optimal allocations while requiring a very small amount of utility information from the distributed computing elements. Since regret-computation is intensive, we compare these to the more tractable Nelder-Mead optimization technique w.r.t. amount of util-ity information required. 1

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.601
Threshold uncertainty score0.324

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.073
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.173 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it