Coded Reactive Stragglers Mitigation in Distributed Computing Systems
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
In distributed computing systems, to mitigate the adverse effect of stragglers on the computation time, computation redundancy is used. The redundancy can be added proactively at the beginning, or reactively after some time based on the delay pattern of the workers. While most of the existing work with reactive mitigation strategy only considered task replication, we propose a coded reactive straggler mitigation with an uncoded and a coded phase for distributed matrix-matrix multiplication. Specifically, in the uncoded phase of the proposed reactive strategy, the master distributes the computational job without redundancy among workers and waits for some time. After the waiting time, the master cancels the remaining tasks. It then encodes the remaining tasks and distributes them among the workers that have already completed their computations. The expected execution time of the proposed method is analytically obtained. Furthermore, the optimal waiting time for the uncoded phase and the optimal code rate for the coded phase are investigated. Our simulation results demonstrate that the proposed coded reactive mitigation strategy significantly decreases the execution time in comparison with the proactive mitigation strategy or repetition-based reactive mitigation strategy.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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