Skip to content
OpenTrain AIFor AI Companies

Ponder: Online Prediction of Task Memory Requirements for Scientific Workflows

Fabian Lehmann, Jonathan Bader, Ninon De Mecquenem, Xing Wang, Vasilis Bountris +3 morePublished Jul 31, 2024
arXiv PDF DOI
Researcher verdict
Starting point
Use as implementation starting point
Benchmark evidence
Missing
Not verified yet
Time to first repro
A few days
Plan setup time
Risk flags
1
Review before use

Abstract

Domain fit: AI-adjacent · Paper appears method- or tooling-adjacent to AI workflows with partial ecosystem coverage.

Scientific workflows are used to analyze large amounts of data. These workflows comprise numerous tasks, many of which are executed repeatedly, running the same custom program on different inputs. Users specify resource allocations for each task, which must be sufficient for all inputs to prevent task failures. As a result, task memory allocations tend to be overly conservative, wasting precious cluster resources, limiting overall parallelism, and increasing workflow makespan. In this paper, we first benchmark a state-of-the-art method on four real-life workflows from the nf-core workflow repository. This analysis reveals that certain assumptions underlying current prediction methods, which typically were evaluated only on simulated workflows, cannot generally be confirmed for real workflows and executions. We then present Ponder, a new online task-sizing strategy that considers and chooses between different methods to cater to different memory demand patterns. We implemented Ponder for Nextflow and made the code publicly available. In an experimental evaluation that also considers the impact of memory predictions on scheduling, Ponder improves Memory Allocation Quality on average by 71.0% and makespan by 21.8% in comparison to a state-of-the-art method. Moreover, Ponder produces 93.8% fewer task failures.

Results and benchmarks

Freshness tier: cold
Scientific workflows are used to analyze large amounts of data.

Implementation

Historical official implementation (not recommended for new builds)

Why this implementation
Confidence: low

Only historical official repository was found (commonworkflowscheduler/kubernetesscheduler).

Open commonworkflowscheduler/kubernetesscheduler
Reproduction risks
  • Only historical official implementation is available
  • No direct maintained implementation is currently verified.
  • Only historical official repository was found: commonworkflowscheduler/kubernetesscheduler.
  • No maintained paper-verified implementation met reliability thresholds.

Compare implementation paths

Compare maintenance quality, reproducibility coverage, and evidence confidence before choosing a reproduction baseline.

Maintenance
Stale
Confidence
High
Reproducibility
Moderate
Stars
5
Last push
Jul 16, 2025 (405d)

Official implementation from Papers with Code · Repository link is mentioned in the paper metadata

  • No push in 12+ months
  • Dependency manifest missing
Maintenance
Stale
Confidence
High
Reproducibility
Limited
Stars
3
Last push
Jun 23, 2025 (428d)

Official implementation from Papers with Code · Repository link is mentioned in the paper metadata

  • No push in 12+ months
  • No Docker setup
  • Dependency manifest missing
Maintenance
Stale
Confidence
High
Reproducibility
Limited
Stars
0
Last push
Oct 10, 2024 (684d)

Official implementation from Papers with Code · Repository link is mentioned in the paper metadata

  • No push in 12+ months
  • No CI pipeline detected
  • No tagged releases

Reproduction readiness

Time to first repro: days
Last checked: Aug 23, 2026

Major work

No dependency manifest, manual reconstruction required

  • commonworkflowscheduler/kubernetesscheduler has no requirements.txt, environment.yml, pyproject.toml, or Dockerfile.
  • You will need to reverse-engineer dependencies from import statements in the source code.
  • Last push was 405 days ago.
Open commonworkflowscheduler/kubernetesscheduler

Hardware requirements

  • Expect multi-day setup/compute for meaningful reproduction based on current guidance.

Repositories and ecosystem

Official

Community

No additional community repositories detected yet.

Hugging Face artifacts

No trustworthy direct or curated related Hugging Face artifacts were found yet. Use targeted searches to quickly locate candidate models, datasets, and demos.

Tip: start with models, then check datasets and spaces if you need evaluation data or demos.

Research context

0

Citations

27

References

Tasks

Computer science, Workflow, Task (project management), Software engineering, Human–computer interaction, Decision Sciences, Information Systems and Management, Social Sciences

Methods

None detected

Domains

None detected

Evaluation and human feedback data

Open this paper in HFEPX to review benchmark signals, evaluation modes, and human-feedback protocol context.

Open in HFEPX
Explore similar papers

Data includes links from Papers with Code ( CC-BY-SA-4.0 ).