A comparative study of pairwise regression techniques for problem determination
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
Many runtime metrics can be collected from modern software systems. Stable statistical relationships exist among these metrics. Deviation from these stable relationships indicates potential problems, allowing diagnosis of failures. There exist many modeling techniques to represent these relationships. However, which one to use is a question that has yet to be studied. In this paper we compare the use of simple linear regression (SLR) to some of its more complex variants, including autoregressive regression and locally weighted regression. We consider the component coverage, model robustness, accuracy of diagnosis, and computation cost. Our study finds that while more flexible models can improve diagnosis accuracy, they achieve it at the cost of reduced robust-ness. In particular, we found the autoregressive regression model with exogenous input (ARX) to provide the most accurate diagnosis; however, it is the least robust of the techniques considered and the second most expensive. This study also finds that smoothing and other data transformations can noticeably improve results of SLR, thus providing an efficient alternative to ARX.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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