MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1492903215 · doi:10.1109/ipdps.2015.91

Monitoring Large-Scale Location-Based Information Systems

2015· article· en· W1492903215 on OpenAlexaff
Hammad Khan, Julien Gascon‐Samson, Jörg Kienzle, Bettina Kemme

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicPeer-to-Peer Network Technologies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceScalabilityMiddleware (distributed applications)Distributed computingNode (physics)Focus (optics)Process (computing)Real-time computingReplication (statistics)Aggregate (composite)Observer (physics)Data miningDatabase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Monitoring the state of a distributed virtual world is challenging for several reasons: 1) the distributed information must be gathered in real-time without affecting the performance of the information system, 2) in large-scale systems it is impossible for a single node to collect and process all the data, 3) the vast information must be filtered and aggregated according to what the human observer wants to focus on, and 4) the point of interest of the observer can change frequently. In this paper we present and evaluate a non-intrusive monitoring middleware that addresses these challenges by dynamically partitioning the geographic map (e.g., of the virtual world or the game) in terms of map objects and (expected) state changes. We assign a different collector node to each of these partitions to collect and pre-process the data, and forward it to a central monitoring node. Furthermore, we provide mechanisms to efficiently filter and aggregate location changes, the pre-dominant changes in location-based information systems. We describe a specific monitoring setup that takes advantage of the replication model that is common in many virtual worlds and multiplayer games to collect the data. Finally, we present extensive performance results that show the trade-offs between scalability, precision, and real-time performance.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

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 score0.895
Threshold uncertainty score0.585

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.225 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPeer-to-Peer Network TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207