Robust and Probabilistic Failure-Aware Placement
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
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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