Attributed Graph Rewriting for Complex Event Processing Self-Management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of Complex Event Processing (CEP) and Stream Processing (SP) systems to process high-volume, high-velocity Big Data has renewed interest in procedures for managing these systems. In particular, self-management and adaptation of runtime platforms have been common research themes, as most of these systems run under dynamic conditions. Nevertheless, the research landscape in this area is still young and fragmented. Most research is performed in the context of specific systems, and it is difficult to generalize the results obtained to other contexts. To enable generic and reusable CEP/SP system management procedures and self-management policies, this research introduces the Attributed Graph Rewriting for Complex Event Processing Management ( AGeCEP ) formalism. AGeCEP represents queries in a language- and technology-agnostic fashion using attributed graphs. Query reconfiguration capabilities are expressed through standardized attributes, which are defined based on a novel classification of CEP query operators. By leveraging this representation, AGeCEP also proposes graph rewriting rules to define consistent reconfigurations of queries. To demonstrate AGeCEP feasibility, this research has used it to design an autonomic manager and to define a selected set of self-management policies. Finally, experiments demonstrate that AGeCEP can indeed be used to develop algorithms that can be integrated into diverse CEP systems.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".