MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2294851609 · doi:10.1109/tpds.2012.172

Speculative Authorization

2012· article· en· W2294851609 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

VenueIEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRecommender Systems and Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceLatency (audio)AuthorizationSpan (engineering)Overhead (engineering)Life spanDistributed computingComputer networkOperating systemTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present Speculative Authorization (SPAN), a prediction technique that reduces authorization latency in enterprise systems. SPAN predicts requests that a system client might make in the near future, based on its past behavior. SPAN allows authorization decisions for the predicted requests to be made before the requests are issued, thus virtually reducing the authorization latency to zero. We developed SPAN algorithms, implemented a prototype, and evaluated it using two real-world data traces and one synthetic data trace. The results of our evaluation suggest that systems employing SPAN are able to achieve a reduced authorization latency for almost 60 percent of the requests. We analyze the tradeoffs between the hit rate and the precision of SPAN predictions, which directly affect the corresponding computational overhead. We also compare the benefits of deploying both caching and SPAN together, and find that SPAN can effectively improve the performance of those systems which have caches of a smaller size.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.996
Threshold uncertainty score0.548

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.229 · 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