MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2053471922 · doi:10.1109/bigdata.2014.7004206

BASIC: An alternative to BASE for large-scale data management system

2014· article· en· W2053471922 on OpenAlexaff
Lengdong Wu, Li-Yan Yuan, Jia-Huai You

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDistributed systems and fault tolerance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceScalabilityDistributed computingTimestampEventual consistencyPartition (number theory)Consistency (knowledge bases)AtomicityConsistency modelDatabaseData consistencyComputer networkDatabase transaction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Big data applications demand and consequently lead to developments of large-scale data management systems, which provide high scalability by partitioning data across multiple servers. Since conventional transactional access is quite expensive, many real world large-scale distributed systems eschew transactional functionality and adopt semantics of atomic multi-partition operations. Accordingly, BASE, a consistency model weaker than ACID, is commonly used to guarantee availability. In this work, we identify a new consistency model-BASIC (Basic Availability, Scalability, Instant Consistency) that matches the requirements where extra efforts are not needed to manipulate inconsistent soft states. We present a timestamp-based formula protocol for BASIC that can enforce Instant Consistency while achieving linear scalability (via logical formula caching, dynamic timestamp ordering) and achieve Basic Availability in the presence of partial failure and network partition (via partition independence, genuine atomic commit). Our extensive experimental results verify the scalability of BASIC and demonstrate that the limited overhead induced by BASIC pays a reasonable price for keeping all soft states consistent.

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 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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.917
Threshold uncertainty score0.420

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 science0.0020.001
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.253 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDistributed systems and fault toleranceFrench-language works237,207