MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4249902410 · doi:10.1145/3009925.3009928

AdaptCache

2016· article· en· W4249902410 on OpenAlexaff
Omar Asad

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCaching and Content Delivery
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceServerLocalityDistributed computingReplication (statistics)WorkloadMiddleware (distributed applications)CacheDistributed objectReplicateLocality of referenceLoad balancing (electrical power)File serverOperating systemObject (grammar)Consistency (knowledge bases)Distributed databaseCommon Object Request Broker Architecture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents the AdaptCache project. AdaptCache is an adaptive caching middleware for application servers that monitors the current workload and generates policies to distribute and/or replicate objects and requests among the local caches of application servers so that most requests can be executed on locally cached objects and, at the same time, the load will be evenly distributed among servers. The project is divided into two main phases. The first one, which is described in detail in this paper, tackles the problem of dynamically distributing objects and requests for volatile and fluctuating e-commerce applications. Several data distribution approaches based on graph partitioning are proposed. The approaches are compared using the YCSB and RUBiS benchmarks showing that AdaptCache is able to dynamically capture various workload changes and react quickly to these changes. The second phase of the AdaptCache project explores data replication for distributed object caches. It discusses the advantages of object replication such as increased locality but also possible overheads due to consistency requirements and space limitations. Any dynamic replication solution must take these issues into account.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.970
Threshold uncertainty score0.582

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.189
Teacher spread0.174 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCaching and Content DeliveryFrench-language works237,207