Controlling fairness and task granularity in distributed, online, non‐clairvoyant workflow executions
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SUMMARY Distributed computing infrastructures are commonly used for scientific computing, and science gateways provide complete middleware stacks to allow their transparent exploitation by end users. However, administrating such systems manually is time consuming and sub‐optimal because of the complexity of the execution conditions. Algorithms and frameworks aiming at automating system administration must deal with online and non‐clairvoyant conditions, where most parameters are unknown and evolve over time. We consider the problem of controlling task granularity and fairness among scientific workflows executed in these conditions. We present two self‐managing loops monitoring the fineness, coarseness, and fairness of workflow executions, comparing these metrics with thresholds extracted from knowledge acquired in previous executions and planning appropriate actions to maintain these metrics to appropriate ranges. Experiments on the European Grid Infrastructure show that our task granularity control can speed up executions up to a factor of 2 and that our fairness control reduces slowdown variability by 3–7 compared with first‐come, first‐served. We also study the interaction between granularity control and fairness control: our experiments demonstrate that controlling task granularity degrades fairness but that our fairness control algorithm can compensate this degradation. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it