MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2809164497 · doi:10.1145/3210367

Robust and Probabilistic Failure-Aware Placement

2018· article· en· W2809164497 on OpenAlex

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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Transactions on Parallel Computing · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCloud Computing and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAlberta Innovates - Technology FuturesNational Science Foundation
KeywordsProbabilistic logicAdversarial systemNode (physics)Computer scienceBinary logarithmTime complexityKey (lock)HierarchyAdversaryReliability (semiconductor)Theoretical computer scienceMathematicsCombinatoricsAlgorithmArtificial intelligenceComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Motivated by the growing complexity and heterogeneity of modern data centers, and the prevalence of commodity component failures, this article studies the failure-aware placement problem of placing tasks of a parallel job on machines in the data center with the goal of increasing availability. We consider two models of failures: adversarial and probabilistic. In the adversarial model, each node has a weight (higher weight implying higher reliability) and the adversary can remove any subset of nodes of total weight at most a given bound W and our goal is to find a placement that incurs the least disruption against such an adversary. In the probabilistic model, each node has a probability of failure and we need to find a placement that maximizes the probability that at least K out of N tasks survive at any time. For adversarial failures, we first show that (i) the problems are in Σ 2 , the second level of the polynomial hierarchy; (ii) a variant of the problem that we call R obust F ap (for Robust Failure-Aware Placement) is co-NP-hard; and (iii) an all-or-nothing version of R obust F ap is Σ 2 -complete. We then give a polynomial-time approximation scheme (PTAS) for R obust F ap , a key ingredient of which is a solution that we design for a fractional version of R obust F ap . We then study H ier R obust F ap , which is the fractional R obust F ap problem over a hierarchical network, in which failures can occur at any subset of nodes in the hierarchy, and a failure at a node can adversely impact all of its descendants in the hierarchy. To solve H ier R obust F ap , we introduce a notion of hierarchical max-min fairness and a novel Generalized Spreading algorithm, which is simultaneously optimal for every upper bound W on the total weight of nodes that an adversary can fail. These generalize the classical notion of max-min fairness to work with nodes of differing capacities, differing reliability weights, and hierarchical structures. Using randomized rounding, we extend this to give an algorithm for integral H ier R obust F ap . For the probabilistic version, we first give an algorithm that achieves an additive ϵ approximation in the failure probability for the single level version, called P rob F ap , while giving up a (1 + ϵ) multiplicative factor in the number of failures. We then extend the result to the hierarchical version, H ier P rob F ap , achieving an ϵ additive approximation in failure probability while giving up an (L + ϵ) multiplicative factor in the number of failures, where L is the number of levels in the hierarchy.

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 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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.842
Threshold uncertainty score0.908

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.216 · 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