Monitoring and diagnosis for autonomic systems: a requirement engineering approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Autonomic computing holds great promise for software systems of the future, but at the same time poses great challenges for Software Engineering. Autonomic computing research aims to design software systems that self-configure, self-repair, self-optimize and self-protect, so as to reduce software maintenance cost while improving performance. The aim of our research is to develop tool-supported methodologies for designing and operating autonomic systems. Like other researchers in this area, we assume that autonomic system architectures consist of monitoring, analysis/diagnosis, planning, and execution components that define a feedback loop and serve as the basis for system self-management.\n\nThis thesis proposes an autonomic framework founded on models of requirements and design. This framework defines the normal operation of a software system in terms of models of its requirements (goal models) and/or operation (statechart models). These models determine what to monitor and how to interpret log data in order to diagnose failures.\n\nThe monitoring component collects and manages log data. The diagnostic component analyzes log data, identifies failures, and pinpoints problematic components. We transform the diagnostic problem into a propositional satisfiability (SAT) problem solvable by off-the-shelf SAT solvers. Log data are preprocessed into a compact propositional encoding that scales well with growing problem size. For repair, our compensation component executes compensation actions to restore the system to an earlier consistent state. The framework repairs failures through reconfiguration when monitoring and diagnosis use requirements. The reconfiguration component selects a best system reconfiguration that contributes most positively to the system's non-functional requirements. It selects a reconfiguration that achieves this while reconfiguring the system minimally. The framework does not currently offer a repair mechanism when monitoring and diagnosis use statecharts.\n\n\nWe illustrate our framework with two medium-sized, publicly-available case studies. We evaluate the framework's performance through a series of experiments on randomly generated and progressively larger specifications. The results demonstrate that our approach scales well with problem size, and can be applied to industrial sized software applications.
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 | 0.010 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| 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".