A comparative study of pairwise regression techniques for problem determination
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.
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 | 0.015 | 0.109 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".