AI-Driven Health Monitoring of Distributed Computing Architecture: Insights from XGBoost and SHAP
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the rapid development of artificial intelligence technology, its application in the optimization of complex computer systems is becoming more and more extensive. Edge computing is an efficient distributed computing architecture, and the health status of its nodes directly affects the performance and reliability of the entire system. In view of the lack of accuracy and interpretability of traditional methods in node health status judgment, this paper proposes a health status judgment method based on XGBoost and combines the SHAP method to analyze the interpretability of the model. Through experiments, it is verified that XGBoost has superior performance in processing complex features and nonlinear data of edge computing nodes, especially in capturing the impact of key features (such as response time and power consumption) on node status. SHAP value analysis further reveals the global and local importance of features, so that the model not only has high-precision discrimination ability but also can provide intuitive explanations, providing data support for system optimization. Research shows that the combination of AI technology and computer system optimization can not only realize the intelligent monitoring of the health status of edge computing nodes but also provide a scientific basis for dynamic optimization scheduling, resource management and anomaly detection. In the future, with the in-depth development of AI technology, model dynamics, cross-node collaborative optimization and multimodal data fusion will become the focus of research, providing important support for the intelligent evolution of edge computing systems.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".