Ocasta: Clustering Configuration Settings for Error Recovery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Effective machine-aided diagnosis and repair of configuration errors continues to elude computer systems designers. Most of the literature targets errors that can be attributed to a single erroneous configuration setting. However, a recent study found that a significant amount of configuration errors require fixing more than one setting together. To address this limitation, Ocasta statistically clusters dependent configuration settings based on the application's accesses to its configuration settings and utilizes the extracted clustering of configuration settings to fix configuration errors involving more than one configuration settings. Ocasta treats applications as black-boxes and only relies on the ability to observe application accesses to their configuration settings. We collected traces of real application usage from 24 Linux and 5 Windows desktops computers and found that Ocasta is able to correctly identify clusters with 88.6% accuracy. To demonstrate the effectiveness of Ocasta, we evaluated it on 16 real-world configuration errors of 11 Linux and Windows applications. Ocasta is able to successfully repair all evaluated configuration errors in 11 minutes on average and only requires the user to examine an average of 3 screenshots of the output of the application to confirm that the error is repaired. A user study we conducted shows that Ocasta is easy to use by both expert and non-expert users and is more efficient than manual configuration error troubleshooting.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".