MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2729364654 · doi:10.1109/isorc.2017.6

A Reordering Framework for Testing Message-Passing Systems

2017· article· en· W2729364654 on OpenAlexaff
Milad Irannejad, Guy Martin Tchamgoue, Sebastian Fischmeister

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDistributed systems and fault tolerance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceTimeoutDebuggingMessage passingOverhead (engineering)ConcurrencySpeedupProcess (computing)Isolation (microbiology)Component (thermodynamics)Distributed computingBlocking (statistics)Operating systemParallel computingComputer network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In a message-passing system (MPS), components communicate through messages. However, both the time and order in which messages are delivered depend on the execution environment. The resulting nondeterminism may lead to concurrency defects such as message races, making it difficult to thoroughly test and debug MPS. This paper presents a new framework for testing components of an MPS for faults that involve the violation of any implicit user-intended receiving order of messages. The framework purposefully assesses possible interleavings by reordering incoming messages before delivering them to the tested target component. We evaluate three methods to support the reordering process: the blocking method intercepts and blocks each message until all its dependencies have occurred, the buffering method buffers a message until either its dependencies are observed or a predefined timeout expires, and the adaptive buffering dynamically adjusts its flushing period. All three methods are implemented inside QNX Neutrino, a popular embedded real-time operating system. The evaluation shows a 4x speedup over random testing with minimal run time overhead and only a few kilobytes of memory overhead. These results confirms the effectiveness and capability of the framework to uncover faults in real-world 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 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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.937
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDistributed systems and fault toleranceFrench-language works237,207