MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3127457110 · doi:10.1145/3197406.3197420

Proving PACELC

2018· article· en· W3127457110 on OpenAlexaff
Wojciech Golab

Bibliographic record

VenueACM SIGACT News · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDistributed systems and fault tolerance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLivenessComputer scienceScalabilityConsistency (knowledge bases)Partition (number theory)Cache coherenceLatency (audio)Model checkingTheoretical computer scienceDistributed computingComputer networkMathematicsArtificial intelligenceOperating systemCombinatoricsTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Scalable distributed systems face inherent trade-offs arising from the relatively high cost of exchanging information between computing nodes. Brewer's CAP (Consistency, Availability, Partition-Tolerance) principle states that when communication becomes impossible between isolated parts of the system (i.e., the network is partitioned), then the system must give up either safety (i.e., sometimes return an incorrect result) or liveness (i.e., sometimes fail to produce a result). Abadi generalized Brewer's principle by defining the PACELC (if Partition then Availability or Consistency, Else Latency or Consistency) formulation, which captures the ob- servation that the trade-off between safety and liveness is often made in practice even while the network is reliable. Building on Gilbert and Lynch's formal proof of the CAP principle, this paper presents a formal treatment of Abadi's formulation and connects this result to a body of prior work on latency bounds for distributed objects.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.058
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.070

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.058
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.005
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.007
Scholarly communication0.0070.018
Open science0.0040.014
Research integrity0.0030.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0210.006

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations7
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM SIGACT NewsSame topicDistributed systems and fault toleranceFrench-language works237,207