MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2739388583 · doi:10.1145/3102980.3102994

Consistency Oracles

2017· article· en· W2739388583 on OpenAlexafffund
Beom Heyn Kim, Sukwon Oh, David Lie

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDistributed systems and fault tolerance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsConsistency (knowledge bases)Consistency modelComputer scienceWeak consistencyEventual consistencyOracleData consistencyStrong consistencyCausal consistencySequential consistencyDistributed computingSoftwarePartition (number theory)Programming languageTheoretical computer scienceMathematicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many modern distributed storage systems emphasize availability and partition tolerance over consistency, leading to many systems that provide weak data consistency. However, weak data consistency is difficult for both system designers and users to reason about. Formal specifications offer precise descriptions of consistency behavior, but they require expertise and specialized tools to apply to real software systems. In this paper, we propose and describe consistency oracles, an alternative way of specifying the consistency model of a system that provides interactive answers, making them easier and more flexible to use in a variety of ways. A consistency oracle mimics the interface of a distributed storage system, but returns all possible values that may be returned under a given consistency model. This allows consistency oracles to be directly applied in the testing and verification of both distributed storage systems and the client software that uses those 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 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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.982
Threshold uncertainty score0.527

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 communication0.0010.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.250 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations5
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDistributed systems and fault toleranceFrench-language works237,207