Focused Layered Performance Modelling by Aggregation
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
Performance models of server systems, based on layered queues, may be very complex. This is particularly true for cloud-based systems based on microservices, which may have hundreds of distinct components, and for models derived by automated data analysis. Often only a few of these many components determine the system performance, and a smaller simplified model is all that is needed. To assist an analyst, this work describes a focused model that includes the important components (the focus ) and aggregates the rest in groups, called dependency groups. The method Focus-based Simplification with Preservation of Tasks described here fills an important gap in a previous method by the same authors. The use of focused models for sensitivity predictions is evaluated empirically in the article on a large set of randomly generated models. It is found that the accuracy depends on a “saturation ratio” ( SR ) between the highest utilization value in the model and the highest value of a component excluded from the focus; evidence suggests that SR must be at least 2 and must be larger to evaluate larger model changes. This dependency was captured in an “Accurate Sensitivity Hypothesis” based on SR, which can be used to indicate trustable sensitivity results.
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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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