socc-experiments

GitHub

用于设计或审计SoCC会议论文实验评估的指南,强调基于真实部署、代表性负载、尾延迟与成本指标及公平基线,确保证据与云系统主张匹配。

SoCC-Skills/skills/socc-experiments/SKILL.md brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills

Trigger Scenarios

设计学术论文实验方案 审计实验评估严谨性

Install

npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill socc-experiments -g -y
More Options

Non-standard path

npx skills add https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/tree/main/SoCC-Skills/skills/socc-experiments -g -y

Use without installing

npx skills use brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills@socc-experiments

指定 Agent (Claude Code)

npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill socc-experiments -a claude-code -g -y

安装 repo 全部 skill

npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --all -g -y

预览 repo 内 skill

npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --list

SKILL.md

Frontmatter
{
    "name": "socc-experiments",
    "description": "Use when designing or auditing ACM SoCC evaluations, covering real or realistic deployments over simulation, production or representative workloads and traces, tail-latency and cost as first-class metrics, fair tuned baselines, scale and multi-tenancy behavior, reproducible measurement pipelines, and matching evidence to the shape of each cloud claim."
}

SoCC Experiments

Use this before submission when the evaluation is not yet locked. SoCC reviewers come from both SIGMOD and SIGOPS, and the evaluation is where a good cloud idea is won or lost. The organizing principle is measured evidence proportional to the claim — the study must test the thing the paper asserts, on a system and workloads a skeptic from either community would accept, with tail latency and cost reported, not just the mean.

Evaluation audit

  • Prefer a real or realistic deployment over simulation. A cloud claim about a system needs the system running on a testbed or cluster; simulation alone invites the "does it hold on real hardware?" reject. Where full scale is impossible, run a faithful scaled deployment and say so.
  • Use production or representative workloads/traces, with stated provenance and selection, and release the replay harness. Synthetic-only microbenchmarks invite the "does this reflect real load?" objection.
  • Report tail and cost, not just averages. p95/p99 (p99.9 where it bites), the latency distribution, and a concrete cost model (instance-seconds or $) are the outcomes operators are billed against.
  • Choose fair baselines, including the strongest prior system and a simple-but-reasonable alternative, each tuned with a documented, equal budget. An untuned baseline is a scored weakness.
  • Show scale and multi-tenancy behavior: how the result holds as nodes, tenants, or load grow, and where the bottleneck appears — SoCC papers live at scale.
  • Make the measurement pipeline reproducible (see the code block) so the evaluation reproduces rather than re-samples.
  • Design limits in, not on: know before you run which provider, region, and regime limits the study will have, and instrument to bound them.

Claim-to-evidence design table

Cloud claim Matching evidence Reject pattern avoided
"System raises throughput at scale" Throughput across node counts on a real testbed vs. tuned baseline "Simulated / small-scale only"
"Holds tail latency under bursts" p99 distribution under bursty replayed load "Only mean latency reported"
"Cuts cost" Instance-seconds or $ under a stated pricing model "Cost asserted, never measured"
"Fair under multi-tenancy" Per-tenant SLO attainment with contending workloads "Single-tenant microbenchmark"
"The new mechanism adds the value" Ablation isolating the mechanism vs. a simpler policy "Mechanism's marginal value never isolated"

Tail, cost, and scale floor

[Tail]   report percentiles and the distribution, not just the mean; state the SLO target
[Cost]   define the pricing model; report the cost metric so a reader can recompute the saving
[Scale]  sweep nodes/tenants/load; identify the bottleneck where the result degrades
[Runs]   report the number of runs and the variance for any measured metric
[Compute] state the testbed actually used (nodes, instance types, kernel), not vague feasibility

Workload and trace provenance floor

  • Pin commit SHAs and record trace extraction dates; archive the replayed trace or a faithful generator, not just a pointer or a query.
  • State inclusion/exclusion criteria and the resulting workload, with the filtering/replay scripts in the artifact.
  • Report how the trace maps onto the testbed (scaling factors, time compression) so a reader can judge realism.

Vignette: evaluating a storage QoS mechanism

Suppose the paper claims a scheduler enforces latency SLOs on shared storage better than the prior system. The matching plan: run both on a real storage testbed with a mix of latency-sensitive and batch tenants replayed from a representative workload; tune both with an equal, documented budget; report per-tenant p99 attainment and aggregate throughput with variance; show behavior as tenants and load scale and name the bottleneck; report the provisioning cost of each; and state external-validity limits (storage backend, workload mix) — every number traceable to a logged run in the artifact.

Statistical and measurement reporting floor

  • Latency distributions and tail percentiles for every comparison, not point estimates.
  • Number of runs and the source of variance for any measured metric.
  • A stated cost model behind any economic claim; the compute actually consumed.

Output format

[Evaluation readiness] strong / adequate / weak
[Claim -> evidence map] <claim: testbed/workload/metric incl. tail+cost>
[Deployment realism] <real testbed / scaled deployment / simulation-only>
[Baseline fairness] <baseline -> tuned? equal budget? documented?>
[Tail+cost+scale] <percentiles + cost model + scaling behavior reported? yes/no>
[Provenance] <trace SHAs+dates, replay harness, testbed described? yes/no>
[Decision-critical next run] <one experiment or measurement extension>

Version History

  • 9f86f09 Current 2026-07-19 17:41

Same Skill Collection

AAAI-Skills/skills/aaai-artifact-evaluation/SKILL.md
AAAI-Skills/skills/aaai-author-response/SKILL.md
AAAI-Skills/skills/aaai-camera-ready/SKILL.md
AAAI-Skills/skills/aaai-experiments/SKILL.md
AAAI-Skills/skills/aaai-related-work/SKILL.md
AAAI-Skills/skills/aaai-reproducibility/SKILL.md
AAAI-Skills/skills/aaai-review-process/SKILL.md
AAAI-Skills/skills/aaai-submission/SKILL.md
AAAI-Skills/skills/aaai-supplementary/SKILL.md
AAAI-Skills/skills/aaai-topic-selection/SKILL.md
AAAI-Skills/skills/aaai-workflow/SKILL.md
AAAI-Skills/skills/aaai-writing-style/SKILL.md
AAMAS-Skills/skills/aamas-artifact-evaluation/SKILL.md
AAMAS-Skills/skills/aamas-author-response/SKILL.md
AAMAS-Skills/skills/aamas-camera-ready/SKILL.md
AAMAS-Skills/skills/aamas-experiments/SKILL.md
AAMAS-Skills/skills/aamas-related-work/SKILL.md
AAMAS-Skills/skills/aamas-reproducibility/SKILL.md
AAMAS-Skills/skills/aamas-review-process/SKILL.md
AAMAS-Skills/skills/aamas-submission/SKILL.md
AAMAS-Skills/skills/aamas-supplementary/SKILL.md
AAMAS-Skills/skills/aamas-topic-selection/SKILL.md
AAMAS-Skills/skills/aamas-workflow/SKILL.md
AAMAS-Skills/skills/aamas-writing-style/SKILL.md
Academy-of-Management-Annals-Skills/skills/amann-editor-strategy/SKILL.md
Academy-of-Management-Annals-Skills/skills/amann-evidence-standards/SKILL.md
Academy-of-Management-Annals-Skills/skills/amann-literature-synthesis/SKILL.md
Academy-of-Management-Annals-Skills/skills/amann-organizing-framework/SKILL.md
Academy-of-Management-Annals-Skills/skills/amann-proposal-framing/SKILL.md
Academy-of-Management-Annals-Skills/skills/amann-review-process/SKILL.md
Academy-of-Management-Annals-Skills/skills/amann-revision/SKILL.md
Academy-of-Management-Annals-Skills/skills/amann-submission/SKILL.md
Academy-of-Management-Annals-Skills/skills/amann-tables-figures/SKILL.md
Academy-of-Management-Annals-Skills/skills/amann-topic-selection/SKILL.md
Academy-of-Management-Annals-Skills/skills/amann-workflow/SKILL.md
Academy-of-Management-Annals-Skills/skills/amann-writing-style/SKILL.md
Academy-of-Management-Journal-Skills/skills/amj-contribution-framing/SKILL.md
Academy-of-Management-Journal-Skills/skills/amj-data-analysis/SKILL.md
Academy-of-Management-Journal-Skills/skills/amj-literature-positioning/SKILL.md
Academy-of-Management-Journal-Skills/skills/amj-methods/SKILL.md
Academy-of-Management-Journal-Skills/skills/amj-rebuttal/SKILL.md
Academy-of-Management-Journal-Skills/skills/amj-review-process/SKILL.md
Academy-of-Management-Journal-Skills/skills/amj-submission/SKILL.md
Academy-of-Management-Journal-Skills/skills/amj-tables-figures/SKILL.md
Academy-of-Management-Journal-Skills/skills/amj-theory-development/SKILL.md
Academy-of-Management-Journal-Skills/skills/amj-topic-selection/SKILL.md
Academy-of-Management-Journal-Skills/skills/amj-workflow/SKILL.md
Academy-of-Management-Journal-Skills/skills/amj-writing-style/SKILL.md
Academy-of-Management-Review-Skills/skills/amr-contribution-framing/SKILL.md
Academy-of-Management-Review-Skills/skills/amr-data-analysis/SKILL.md

Metadata

Files
0
Version
5717eab
Hash
89864fae
Indexed
2026-07-19 17:41

Главная - Вики-сайт
Copyright © 2011-2026 iteam. Current version is 2.155.2. UTC+08:00, 2026-08-05 07:49
浙ICP备14020137号-1 $Гость$