MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2041218528 · doi:10.1002/qre.1147

FaBSR: a method for cluster failure prediction based on Bayesian serial revision and an application to LANL cluster

2010· article· en· W2041218528 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

VenueQuality and Reliability Engineering International · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware System Performance and Reliability
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCluster (spacecraft)Failure rateBayesian probabilityScale (ratio)Computer scienceSeries (stratigraphy)PopulationStatisticsReliability engineeringMathematicsEngineeringArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Accurate failure number prediction of Repairable Large‐scale Long‐running Computing (RLLC) cluster systems is a challenge because of the reparability and large scale of the system. Furthermore, the variational failure rate derived from system maintenance yields a small sample problem, that is, the failure numbers observed from different time phases do not belong to the same population. To address the challenge, a general Bayesian serial revision prediction method (FaBSR) is proposed on the basis of the Time Series and Bootstrap approaches, and it can determine the distribution of failure number, analyze the variation trend of failure rate and accurately predict the failure number. To demonstrate the performance gains of the method, the data of Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) cluster system are used as a typical RLLC system to do extensive experiments. And experimental results show that the prediction accuracy of FaBSR is 80.4%, improved by more than 4% compared with other existing methods. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.541
Threshold uncertainty score0.573

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.292 · 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