MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2035538419 · doi:10.1504/ijhpcn.2011.038708

Leveraging many simple statistical models to adaptively monitor software systems

2011· article· en· W2035538419 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

VenueInternational Journal of High Performance Computing and Networking · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware System Performance and Reliability
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSystem monitoringContext (archaeology)SoftwareComponent (thermodynamics)Continuous monitoringFault detection and isolationData miningReliability engineeringSimple (philosophy)Real-time computingArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ensuring that a software system meets its objectives requires continuous monitoring. In practice, monitoring is either insufficient to effectively detect and diagnose failures, or is too costly to use in production. An alternative is adaptive monitoring, where the system is monitored at a minimal level to determine system health, and if a problem is suspected, the monitoring level is automatically increased to determine faults. To model the system at different monitoring levels, we employ statistical techniques to identify stable relationships in the monitored data. These relationships characterise normal operation and can help detect anomalies. We describe our approach in the context of a J2EE-based system. We show that adaptive monitoring is a cost-effective alternative to continuous detailed monitoring. We inject 29 different faults, and show that we detect the faults in 80% of cases and shortlist the faulty component in 65% of the detected cases.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.784
Threshold uncertainty score0.610

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.220 · 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