Surrogate Modeling for Scalable Evaluation of Distributed Computing Systems for HEP Applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Worldwide LHC Computing Grid (WLCG) provides the robust computing infrastructure essential for the LHC experiments by integrating global computing resources into a cohesive entity. Simulations of different compute models present a feasible approach for evaluating future adaptations that are able to cope with future increased demands. However, running these simulations incurs a trade-off between accuracy and scalability. For example, while the simulator DCSim can provide accurate results, it falls short on scaling with the size of the simulated platform. Using Generative Machine Learning as a surrogate presents a candidate for overcoming this challenge. In this work, we evaluate the usage of three different Machine Learning models for the simulation of distributed computing systems and assess their ability to generalize to unseen situations. We show that those models can predict central observables derived from execution traces of compute jobs with approximate accuracy but with orders of magnitude faster execution times. Furthermore, we identify potentials for improving the predictions towards better accuracy and generalizability.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".