Optimal Compensation for Hierarchical Web Services Compositions Under Restricted Visibility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the years, the notion of transactions has become synonymous with providing fault-tolerance, reliability and robustness to database systems. To extend the same transactional guarantees to new and evolving paradigms, such as Web service, the transactional mechanisms must first be adapted to the distinguishing characteristics of Web services, mainly composability, long-running nature, and privacy and security concerns. Composability refers to the ability to form new composite services by combining the functionalities of existing services. Due to their long-running nature, compensation based mechanisms are usually preferred to provide transactional guarantees for Web services. Compensation requires access (visibility) over the execution details of the services in the composition. However, such visibility may not always be feasible in a compositional context where component services are provided by different providers across organizational boundaries, with very strong privacy and security constraints. This paper looks at compensation options for Web services in a hierarchical composition. Multiple compensation options may be available for a composite service both at the same level and at different levels of the hierarchy. This paper shows how to find an optimal compensation option under restricted visibility.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".