通过“背靠背”测试获得对可靠性基准结论的信心(实践经验报告)

Miquel Martínez, D. Andrés, Juan-Carlos Ruiz-Garcia
{"title":"通过“背靠背”测试获得对可靠性基准结论的信心(实践经验报告)","authors":"Miquel Martínez, D. Andrés, Juan-Carlos Ruiz-Garcia","doi":"10.1109/EDCC.2014.20","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The main goal of any benchmark is to guide decisions through system ranking, but surprisingly little research has been focused so far on providing means to gain confidence on the analysis carried out with benchmark results. The inclusion of a back-to-back testing approach in the benchmark analysis process to compare conclusions and gain confidence on the final adopted choices seems convenient to cope with this challenge. The proposal is to look for the coherence of rankings issued from the application of independent multiple-criteria decision making (MCDM) techniques on results. Although any MCDM method can be potentially used, this paper reports our experience using the Logic Score of Preferences (LSP) and the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). Discrepancies in provided rankings invalidate conclusions and must be tracked to discover in coherences and correct the related analysis errors. Once rankings are coherent, the underlying analysis also does, thus increasing our confidence on supplied conclusions.","PeriodicalId":364377,"journal":{"name":"2014 Tenth European Dependable Computing Conference","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-05-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"9","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Gaining Confidence on Dependability Benchmarks' Conclusions through \\\"Back-to-Back\\\" Testing (Practical Experience Report)\",\"authors\":\"Miquel Martínez, D. Andrés, Juan-Carlos Ruiz-Garcia\",\"doi\":\"10.1109/EDCC.2014.20\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The main goal of any benchmark is to guide decisions through system ranking, but surprisingly little research has been focused so far on providing means to gain confidence on the analysis carried out with benchmark results. The inclusion of a back-to-back testing approach in the benchmark analysis process to compare conclusions and gain confidence on the final adopted choices seems convenient to cope with this challenge. The proposal is to look for the coherence of rankings issued from the application of independent multiple-criteria decision making (MCDM) techniques on results. Although any MCDM method can be potentially used, this paper reports our experience using the Logic Score of Preferences (LSP) and the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). Discrepancies in provided rankings invalidate conclusions and must be tracked to discover in coherences and correct the related analysis errors. Once rankings are coherent, the underlying analysis also does, thus increasing our confidence on supplied conclusions.\",\"PeriodicalId\":364377,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"2014 Tenth European Dependable Computing Conference\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2014-05-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"9\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"2014 Tenth European Dependable Computing Conference\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1109/EDCC.2014.20\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2014 Tenth European Dependable Computing Conference","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/EDCC.2014.20","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

摘要

任何基准测试的主要目标都是通过系统排名来指导决策,但令人惊讶的是,迄今为止很少有研究关注于提供方法来获得对基准测试结果进行的分析的信心。在基准分析过程中包含一个背靠背测试方法,以比较结论并获得对最终采用的选择的信心,似乎可以方便地应对这一挑战。该建议是寻找从应用独立的多标准决策(MCDM)技术对结果发布的排名的一致性。尽管任何MCDM方法都可以潜在地使用,但本文报告了我们使用逻辑偏好评分(LSP)和层次分析法(AHP)的经验。所提供的排名的差异使结论无效,必须跟踪以发现一致性并纠正相关的分析错误。一旦排名是一致的,基础分析也会一致,从而增加我们对所提供结论的信心。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Gaining Confidence on Dependability Benchmarks' Conclusions through "Back-to-Back" Testing (Practical Experience Report)
The main goal of any benchmark is to guide decisions through system ranking, but surprisingly little research has been focused so far on providing means to gain confidence on the analysis carried out with benchmark results. The inclusion of a back-to-back testing approach in the benchmark analysis process to compare conclusions and gain confidence on the final adopted choices seems convenient to cope with this challenge. The proposal is to look for the coherence of rankings issued from the application of independent multiple-criteria decision making (MCDM) techniques on results. Although any MCDM method can be potentially used, this paper reports our experience using the Logic Score of Preferences (LSP) and the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). Discrepancies in provided rankings invalidate conclusions and must be tracked to discover in coherences and correct the related analysis errors. Once rankings are coherent, the underlying analysis also does, thus increasing our confidence on supplied conclusions.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Increasing Dependability of Component-Based Software Systems by Online Failure Prediction (Short Paper) A Study of the Impact of Bit-Flip Errors on Programs Compiled with Different Optimization Levels On a Modeling Approach to Analyze Resilience of a Smart Grid Infrastructure Towards a Dependability Control Center for Large Software Landscapes (Short Paper) Speculative Software Modification and its Use in Securing SOUP
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1