MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Context-Aware Feature Selection using Denoising Auto-Encoder for Fault Detection in Cloud Environments

2022· article· en· W4312575430 on OpenAlexaff
Razieh Abbasi Ghalehtaki, Amin Ebrahimzadeh, Roch Glitho

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAnomaly Detection Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFeature selectionDiscriminative modelFeature (linguistics)Computer scienceContext (archaeology)Artificial intelligenceFeature engineeringEncoderMachine learningCloud computingFault detection and isolationData miningAutoencoderFeature extractionPattern recognition (psychology)Deep learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Machine learning is expected to play an instrumental role in automating the detection of faults in next-generation cloud networks. The existing machine-learning-based fault detection methods suffer from the following drawbacks: (i) ignoring the issue of missing feature values, (ii) ignoring the impact of each feature on output prediction over other features (measurement of feature importance), and (iii) lack of calculation of the proper number of features for fault detection. To address the above challenges, in this paper, we propose a context-aware feature selection method to improve the performance of fault detection methods in the cloud environment, aiming at maximizing the <tex xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">$F_{1}$</tex> -score. Our proposed solution comprises Denoising Auto-Encoder (DAE) stacked with a Discriminative Model (DM). The DAE is applied to handle the missing feature values and encoding features while the DM is responsible for making predictions of system status based on the encoded features. Then, the sensitivity analysis of output prediction with respect to each input feature value is used to measure the feature importance. We compare our work with existing solutions from the literature. Our results reveal that the proposed solution can improve the <tex xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">$F_{1}$</tex> -score up to 47 % and 76 % in the scenario where all feature values are known and in the scenario where only 25 % of feature values are known, respectively.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.934
Threshold uncertainty score0.491

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 studies0.0010.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAnomaly Detection Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207