MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2059245867 · doi:10.1145/1082983.1083071

Hierarchical model-based autonomic control of software systems

2005· article· en· W2059245867 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

VenueACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware System Performance and Reliability
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityIBM (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceWorkloadQuality of serviceDistributed computingService levelProvisioningControl (management)SoftwareComputer networkArtificial intelligenceOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Various control algorithms are used in autonomic control to maintain Quality of Service (QoS) and Service Level Agreements (SLAs). Controllers are all based to some extent on models of the relationship between resources, QoS measures, and the workload imposed by the environment. This work discusses the range of algorithms with an emphasis on richer and more powerful models to describe non-linear performance relationships, and strong interactions among the system resources. A hierarchical framework is described which accommodates different scopes and timescales of control actions, and different control algorithms. The control algorithms and architectures can be considered in three stages: tuning, load balancing and provisioning. Different situations warrant different solutions, so this work shows how different control algorithms and architectures at the three stages can be combined to fit into different autonomic environments to meet QoS and SLAs across a large variety of workloads.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.623
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.208 · 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