Fast estimation of probabilities of soft deadline misses in layered software performance models
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
Quality of service requirements are normally given in terms of soft deadlines, such as "90% of responses should complete within one second". To estimate the probability of meeting the target delay, one must estimate the distribution of response time, or at least its tail. Exact analytic methods based on state-space analysis suffer from state explosion, and simulation, which is also feasible, is very time consuming. Rapid approximate estimation would be valuable, especially for those cases which do not demand great precision, and which require the exploration of many alternative models.This work adapts layered queueing analysis, which is highly scalable and provides variance estimates as well as mean values, to estimate soft deadline success rates. It evaluates the use of an approximate Gamma distribution fitted to the mean and variance, and its application to examples of software systems. The evaluation finds that, for a definable set of situations, the tail probabilities over 90% are estimated well within a margin of 1% accuracy, which is useful for practical purposes.
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 | 0.000 | 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