Integrated estimation and tracking of performance model parameters with autoregressive trends (abstracts only)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adaptive management of a software service system can take advantage of a performance model which can predict the effect of proposed changes, before they are deployed. As the system varies over time the model parameters can be tracked by an estimator such as a Kalman Filter, so that decisions can be updated. The filter is valuable when parameters are "hidden" and cannot be directly measured without excessive cost (as is usually the case for the CPU time of a service). Because there may be significant delays in some management control actions (especially in deploying a new replica of a service), it is also important to be able to predict the changes ahead somewhat in time, that is, to predict the trends. The trend predictor itself needs to be estimated from observed trends in the model parameters. This work uses an autoregressive model for trend prediction and integrates it with the parameter estimator, in a single Kalman Filter, using auxiliary states for the parameter evolution process. This paper describes how the trend model is constructed, and evaluates its effectiveness. It compares the overall performance predictions to a simpler trend predictor using linear extrapolation of the fitted parameter time-series, which turns out to be almost as good. The approach is validated on a real system running a benchmark web application.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".