LHC@home

For heaven's sake, Saenger, let it go. Chrulle has answered your question quite succinctly.

There's no point in dragging this minor problem up over and over again, and certainly no point in spamming other threads with the same non-issue.

My opinion: You can't eat credit, you can't spend it. Why worry if it's not quite 'right' (whatever that means).

---

Gaspode the UnDressed
http://www.littlevale.co.uk

<blockquote>For heaven's sake, Saenger, let it go. Chrulle has answered your question quite succinctly.

There's no point in dragging this minor problem up over and over again, and certainly no point in spamming other threads with the same non-issue.

My opinion: You can't eat credit, you can't spend it. Why worry if it's not quite 'right' (whatever that means).</blockquote>

Idon't care so much about my credit (it's not mine btw) but for the credability of this project, and the handling of this issue says a lot about it, and not the best.

Chrulle hasn't answered my questions. He has claimed, that there was some bug, that was fixed. It was obviously not.

And the questions regarding this substandard credit handling, obviously to avoid detection of invalids, is something that really will turn me away from this project.

I regard the credit handling as a kind of litmus test for the seriousness of the projects. I don't mind losing them, if a good and valid explanation is given. I even crunch for betas without any credit. But this here is just disgusting.
No consistent policy, no real answers. If he has answered, can you please tell me where?

Where has he written whether partial credit for invalids is still the standing policy?

If so, why it isn't added to the totals?

Or if this should be added, why it's still not done?

---

Grüße vom Sänger

I even crunch for betas without any credit. But this here is just disgusting.
=========
If it's so Disgusting to you why don't you just go processes some WU's from another Project thats less Disgusting to you...

<blockquote>I even crunch for betas without any credit. But this here is just disgusting.
=========
If it's so Disgusting to you why don't you just go processes some WU's from another Project thats less Disgusting to you...</blockquote>
Hey PoorBoy are you still LURKING around these parts? I thought the last test of beta workunits you did sent you wayyyyyy down the collider tubes.....hehehe...

---

Hey PoorBoy are you still LURKING around these parts? I thought the last test of beta workunits you did sent you wayyyyyy down the collider tubes.....hehehe...
=========

hehe...Ya, I drop in once in awhile to see whats going on. I've been hitting some of the other Projects WU's for awhile. I get restless staying in one place to long ... ;)

---

<blockquote>Chrulle hasn't answered my questions. He has claimed, that there was some bug, that was fixed. It was obviously not.</blockquote>

As was said, Chrulle did attempt to answer your question. Based on the time interval between his post and yours, I'd like to believe he DID answer it, though was incorrect with his reply. To quote him (emphasis is my own), "We <B>believe</B> we have found the reason for the missing credit." It's quite possible that he was mistaken and that there IS some bug that they aren't aware of.


<blockquote>And the questions regarding this substandard credit handling, obviously to avoid detection of invalids, is something that really will turn me away from this project.</blockquote>

I'm very sorry if this roadbump turns you away from the project (more power to you for wanting better! =)), but your idea that this mishandling is due to "[Cern trying to] avoid detection of invalids" sounds a bit too much like a conspiracy theory to me. Perhaps I'm overly trusting, but I'd like to believe that it's just some bug they haven't been aware of (and apparently still aren't given the fact that they claimed the validator was fine).


<blockquote>Where has he written whether partial credit for invalids is still the standing policy?

If so, why it isn't added to the totals?

Or if this should be added, why it's still not done?</blockquote>

1) I haven't seen it written by him, though the validator does indeed "grant" (though apparently never adds in) 1/2*credit for invalid results.

2) Apparently this problem goes beyond what Chrulle and Markku initially believe. It remains to be seen why they aren't being added.


Finally, this problem of credit addition appears to be more complex than you think it is. Your assumption has been that invalid results are not being totaled in, though based off the results turned in by the user you referenced in your post (locke), this can't be. His valid results total up to 15.33 credits. His total credit however is 23.52. To make things even WEIRDER, I can find no way to total the rest of his (invalid yet "granted") credits to get the missing 8.19. This is obviously some kind of problem beyond invalids not getting totaled in or the devs forgetting to do it manually after a dbase crash.

Puffy

---

<blockquote>I even crunch for betas without any credit. But this here is just disgusting.
=========
If it's so Disgusting to you why don't you just go processes some WU's from another Project thats less Disgusting to you...</blockquote>

Because I like the science behind this project, although after this I sincerely think about leaving, if this isn't solved, or at least acknowledged as a bug.
This "Shut up, everythings fine" behaviour, while it's obviously not doesn't help.

"Granting" without adding is just the behaviour that was observed and rightfully posted here as a mayor bug, and it's still not solved.
And whether the general policy of partly granting is still en vogue has also not been answered.

---

Grüße vom Sänger

<blockquote>
What is the current project policy regarding invalid results?
</blockquote>

Partially invalid results are granted one half of the credit granted to the canonical result.

Too much differing results are granted zero credits.

<blockquote>
If so, are these credits realy granted, or just some cover up for not granted?
</blockquote>

Partial credit is granted just like full credit.

<blockquote>
My opinion:

Invalid is invalid is 0.00 credits.
</blockquote>

We like to grant credit based on the CPU time dedicated to the project. If there is minor computation error yielding a partially differing result, we think it is most likely not the user's fault. For those people trying to fake results, getting the results anywhere near the correct answer (and thus, earning fake credit) is too hard to be worth it.

<blockquote>
Lot's of invalid mean, that this CPU/OS setup is not suitable for this projects needs. I can either fix it, or leave. That's fine, no harm done (as is imho with fake credit).
</blockquote>

I admit there should be better way to see how many results have been invalid for a certain user. Let's see if we can do anything about it.

---

Markku Degerholm
LHC@home admin

Having said that, I must confess that it's only how it's supposed to be. There really is something odd with the validator. The validator is based on the BOINC validator template and modified to do some LHC@home-specific tricks. Probably the BOINC part does something unexpected. Need to investigate more...

EDIT: A bug found and killed. Let's hope there aren't too many left.

---

Markku Degerholm
LHC@home admin

Sorry for asking, Marku, but aren't these two parts contradictory to eachother?

<blockquote>Too much differing results are granted zero credits. </blockquote>
<blockquote>We like to grant credit based on the CPU time dedicated to the project.</blockquote>

What if 4 computers have returned the result correctly, but their time amounts differ greatly? Say it's a 10,000 turns WU and the run times are 2,000 .. 4,000 ..6,000 and 8,000 seconds. That's all a lot of time, but they should be considered invalid according to your first statement. The second statement says they should be valid.

All on a non-cheating basis.

---

Jord

BOINC FAQ Service

<blockquote>Sorry for asking, Marku, but aren't these two parts contradictory to eachother?

<blockquote>Too much differing results are granted zero credits. </blockquote>
<blockquote>We like to grant credit based on the CPU time dedicated to the project.</blockquote>

What if 4 computers have returned the result correctly, but their time amounts differ greatly? Say it's a 10,000 turns WU and the run times are 2,000 .. 4,000 ..6,000 and 8,000 seconds. That's all a lot of time, but they should be considered invalid according to your first statement. The second statement says they should be valid.

All on a non-cheating basis. </blockquote>

I'm not sure if I got your point. Anyway, by "too much differing" I meant difference in the result, not in the processing time. So in your example all the validated results should get the same amount of credit because they have all completed the same work unit.

With "based on the CPU time" I meant that people who donate CPU time to the project should be granted credit (dependless of possible small errors computation may produce. How much credit to get per donated CPU hour, that's an another matter.

I hope this answered your question - If I understood it incorrectly, please restate it:)

---

Markku Degerholm
LHC@home admin

<blockquote>
We like to grant credit based on the CPU time dedicated to the project. If there is minor computation error yielding a partially differing result, we think it is most likely not the user's fault. For those people trying to fake results, getting the results anywhere near the correct answer (and thus, earning fake credit) is too hard to be worth it.

<blockquote>
Lot's of invalid mean, that this CPU/OS setup is not suitable for this projects needs. I can either fix it, or leave. That's fine, no harm done (as is imho with fake credit).
</blockquote>

I admit there should be better way to see how many results have been invalid for a certain user. Let's see if we can do anything about it.
</blockquote>


Thank you for the answer, Markku!

As I said before, I can live with that solution, the other is something for the wishlist.

<blockquote>EDIT: A bug found and killed. Let's hope there aren't too many left.</blockquote>

And I hope everything is fine now, and that we'll see the difference somehow ;)

---

Grüße vom Sänger