Conducting Repeatable Experiments in Highly Variable Cloud Computing Environments
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous work has shown that benchmark and application performance in public cloud computing environments can be highly variable. Utilizing Amazon EC2 traces that include measurements affected by CPU, memory, disk, and network performance, we study commonly used methodologies for comparing performance measurements in cloud computing environments. The results show considerable flaws in these methodologies that may lead to incorrect conclusions. For instance, these methodologies falsely report that the performance of two identical systems differ by 38% using a confidence level of 95%. We then study the efficacy of the Randomized Multiple Interleaved Trials (RMIT) methodology using the same traces. We demonstrate that RMIT could be used to conduct repeatable experiments that enable fair comparisons in this cloud computing environment despite the fact that changing conditions beyond the user's control make comparing competing alternatives highly challenging.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it