SuperBench: A Proactive Validation System for Improving Reliability of Cloud AI Infrastructure
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
Reliability in cloud AI infrastructure is crucial for cloud service providers, prompting the widespread use of hardware redundancies. However, these redundancies can inadvertently lead to hidden degradation, known as “gray failure”, for AI workloads, significantly affecting end-to-end performance and concealing performance issues, which complicates root cause analysis for failures and regressions. We introduce SuperBench, a proactive validation system for AI infrastructure that mitigates hidden degradation caused by hardware redundancies and enhances overall reliability. SuperBench features a comprehensive benchmark suite, capable of evaluating individual hardware components and representing most real AI workloads. It comprises a Validator that learns benchmark criteria to pinpoint defective components clearly. Additionally, SuperBench incorporates a Selector to balance validation time and issue-related penalties, enabling optimal timing for validation execution with a tailored subset of benchmarks. Through testbed evaluation and simulation, we demonstrate that SuperBench can increase the mean time between incidents by up to 22.61×. SuperBench has been successfully deployed in Azure production, validating hundreds of thousands of GPUs every year.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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