MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2942518909 · doi:10.1145/3297280.3297311

Failure prediction in the internet of things due to memory exhaustion

2019· article· en· W2942518909 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammad Rafiuzzaman, Julien Gascon‐Samson, Karthik Pattabiraman, Sathish Gopalakrishnan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicIoT and Edge/Fog Computing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceInternet of ThingsLatency (audio)Cloud computingRecallReal-time computingEmbedded systemOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present a technique to predict failures resulting from memory exhaustion in devices built for the modern Internet of Things (IoT). These devices can run general-purpose applications on the network edge for local data processing to reduce latency, bandwidth and infrastructure costs, and to address data safety and privacy concerns. Applications are, however, not optimized for all devices and could result in sudden and unexpected memory exhaustion failures because of limited available memory on those IoT devices. Proactive prediction of such failures, with sufficient lead time, allows for adaptation of the application or its safe termination. Our memory failure prediction technique for applications running on IoT devices uses k-Nearest-Neighbor (kNN) based machine learning models. We have evaluated our technique using two third-party applications and a real-world IoT simulation application on two different IoT platforms and on an Amazon EC2 t2.micro instance for both single and multitenancy use cases. Our results indicate that our technique significantly outperforms simpler threshold-based techniques: in our test applications, with 180 seconds of lead time, failures were accurately predicted with 88% recall at 74% precision for a single application failure and 76% recall at 71% precision for multitenancy failure.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.853
Threshold uncertainty score0.164

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations6
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicIoT and Edge/Fog ComputingFrench-language works237,207