Event owner lens
Use this record to benchmark whether a comparable event makes the work after the room visible. The score is 46/100, so the next move is to benchmark the weakest pillars before repeating the format.
action-oriented convening agenda analysis
OSDI
This action-oriented convening in Academic / Research / Science shows 31 visible agenda rows from usenix.org and scores 46/100: a moderate design signal with incomplete evidence. The clearest public signals sit in Future-of-Work Fit and Learning Transfer; the main limits are Follow Through and Network Design. Visible mechanisms include Participant work, Commitments, Feedback, and Network design. Follow-through or tracking is at least visible enough to inspect, though causal proof still depends on stronger evidence. A practical reading: For a reader, this is a useful but still incomplete public example: it reads as an action-oriented convening, with the strongest visible signal in future-of-work fit and learning transfer and the biggest open question around follow through and network design. The practical test is whether the published agenda connects the room to post-event continuation and evidence. This page is an original public-evidence analysis, not a copy of the source agenda or an endorsement of the event. The score places the visible agenda in the moderate design signal band. The strongest visible pillars are Future-of-Work Fit, Learning Transfer, and Participation Architecture; the thinnest visible pillars are Follow Through, Network Design, and Evidence Maturity. Visible mechanisms include Participant work, Commitments, Feedback, Network design, and Learning transfer. The extracted agenda preview includes 50 visible rows. The most common formats are Training, Poster Session, and Meal; the most common inferred purposes are Showcase, Skill Building, and Wellbeing.
Eight-pillar fingerprint
Hover any pillar to see what it measures and, where it scored low, what the agenda is missing.
Participation Architecture?56
Participation Architecture - 56/100. Participant work, contribution, interaction, and alternatives to passive broadcast.
Follow Through?16
Follow Through - 16/100. Owners, dates, commitments, progress checks, and accountability after the room.Missing: Add named owners, dates, implementation checkpoints, and a visible post-event continuation path.
Problem Specificity?49
Problem Specificity - 49/100. A clear costly problem, objective, decision, or performance target.
Personalization?49
Personalization - 49/100. Role, path, goal, preparation, or connection tailoring for participants.
Network Design?40
Network Design - 40/100. Structured weak ties, bridge-building, mixers, and relationship persistence.Missing: Replace generic networking blocks with designed introductions, ask-offer exchanges, peer groups, or bridge-building rituals.
Learning Transfer?59
Learning Transfer - 59/100. Applied practice, feedback, workplace use, refreshers, and 30-90 day transfer.
Evidence Maturity?44
Evidence Maturity - 44/100. Baseline, comparison, follow-up, isolation, and attribution confidence.Missing: Add baseline measurement, comparison logic, tracking, or post-event impact reporting so effectiveness is not inferred only from format.
Future-of-Work Fit?69
Future-of-Work Fit - 69/100. Value against time, hybrid reality, accessibility, AI, and meeting load.
Fix the gaps
Field-tested exercises matched to this agenda's weakest pillars, from the exercise library.
Follow Through (16/100)
Exercises that strengthen it: Mental Toughness Workshop • WorkshopBank · 15% Solutions • WorkshopBank · Network Patches
Network Design (40/100)
Exercises that strengthen it: Fun Trust-Building Group Game for Team Connection - Izzat... · Exciting Group Trust Activity for Building Confidence... · PFP: September 2005
Problem Specificity (49/100)
Exercises that strengthen it: 0 - “Two Person Scene” Theory · Challenge Axis - Knowmium: The Un-Training Consultancy · Fist to Five • WorkshopBank
Agenda Preview
The actual agenda we captured. Every block is classified by format and purpose. Open any block to see how we read it; the colored edge shows whether it is participant work, broadcast, logistics, or a showcase.
Room vs wrapper
28 percent of the 50 classified blocks put participants to work; the rest broadcast, show, or handle logistics. That mix is what drives the participation score.
Participant workBroadcastShowcaseLogistics
all eventPoster SessionPoster sessionShowcase+
Format · ShowcasePoster sessionPresenters display work; attendees browse and ask questions. Some interaction, not structured work.
Evidence basisOutcome inferred from formatInferred from format
all eventCall for PostersPoster sessionShowcase+
Format · ShowcasePoster sessionPresenters display work; attendees browse and ask questions. Some interaction, not structured work.
Evidence basisOutcome inferred from formatInferred from format
7:30 am - 9:00 amContinental BreakfastMealPacing+
Format · LogisticsMealA pacing block. Can carry unstructured networking, not scored as participant work.
Evidence basisOutcome inferred from formatInferred from format
9:00 am - 10:00 amHide details ▾PresentationKnowledge transfer+
Format · BroadcastPresentationSpeakers present, the audience receives. Awareness only unless paired with practice or follow-up.
Evidence basisNo participant output visible from this rowRead from source, no work signal
all eventOSDI '25 and USENIX ATC '25 Joint Keynote AddressKeynoteExpert framing+
Format · BroadcastKeynoteA featured talk from the stage. Builds awareness and energy, produces no participant output on its own.
Evidence basisNo participant output visible from this rowRead from source, no work signal
10:00 am - 10:30 amCoffee and Tea BreakBreakPacing+
Format · LogisticsBreakA pacing or recovery block between sessions.
Evidence basisOutcome inferred from formatInferred from format
10:30 am - 10:45 amOpening Remarks and AwardsOpeningOrientation+
Format · BroadcastOpeningFormat not classified from the source; treated as a broadcast block by default.
Evidence basisNo participant output visible from this rowRead from source, no work signal
all eventFineMem: Breaking the Allocation Overhead vs. Memory Waste Dilemma in Fine-Grained Disaggregated Memory ManagementPresentationPacing+
Format · BroadcastPresentationSpeakers present, the audience receives. Awareness only unless paired with practice or follow-up.
Evidence basisNo participant output visible from this rowRead from source, no work signal
12:45 pm - 2:00 pmSymposium LuncheonMealPacing+
Format · LogisticsMealA pacing block. Can carry unstructured networking, not scored as participant work.
Evidence basisOutcome inferred from formatInferred from format
6:00 pm - 7:30 pmOSDI '25 Poster Session and ReceptionReceptionShowcase+
Format · LogisticsReceptionA social or hospitality block. Pacing and informal connection, not participant work.
Evidence basisOutcome inferred from formatInferred from format
7:30 pm - 8:30 pmUSENIX 50th Anniversary CelebrationPresentationKnowledge transfer+
Format · BroadcastPresentationSpeakers present, the audience receives. Awareness only unless paired with practice or follow-up.
Evidence basisNo participant output visible from this rowRead from source, no work signal
all eventTraining with Confidence: Catching Silent Errors in Deep Learning Training with Automated Proactive ChecksTrainingSkill building+
Format · Participant workTrainingGuided skill building where participants practice. Counts as participant work and learning transfer.
Evidence basisParticipant work is implied by the formatInferred from format
all eventUnderstanding Stragglers in Large Model Training Using What-if AnalysisTrainingSkill building+
Format · Participant workTrainingGuided skill building where participants practice. Counts as participant work and learning transfer.
Evidence basisParticipant work is implied by the formatInferred from format
all eventZEN: Empowering Distributed Training with Sparsity-driven Data SynchronizationTrainingSkill building+
Format · Participant workTrainingGuided skill building where participants practice. Counts as participant work and learning transfer.
Evidence basisParticipant work is implied by the formatInferred from format
6:00 pm - 7:30 pmUSENIX ATC '25 Poster Session and ReceptionReceptionShowcase+
Format · LogisticsReceptionA social or hospitality block. Pacing and informal connection, not participant work.
Evidence basisOutcome inferred from formatInferred from format
7:30 pm - 8:30 pmTribute to USENIX ATCPresentationKnowledge transfer+
Format · BroadcastPresentationSpeakers present, the audience receives. Awareness only unless paired with practice or follow-up.
Evidence basisNo participant output visible from this rowRead from source, no work signal
all eventWLB-LLM: Workload-Balanced 4D Parallelism for Large Language Model TrainingTrainingSkill building+
Format · Participant workTrainingGuided skill building where participants practice. Counts as participant work and learning transfer.
Evidence basisParticipant work is implied by the formatInferred from format
12:30 pm - 2:00 pmLunch (on your own)MealPacing+
Format · LogisticsMealA pacing block. Can carry unstructured networking, not scored as participant work.
Evidence basisOutcome inferred from formatInferred from format
5:30 pm - 5:35 pmClosing RemarksClosingOrientation+
Format · BroadcastClosingFormat not classified from the source; treated as a broadcast block by default.
Evidence basisNo participant output visible from this rowRead from source, no work signal
all eventPoster SessionPoster SessionShowcase+
Format · ShowcasePoster SessionPresenters display work; attendees browse and ask questions. Some interaction, not structured work.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventCall for PostersPoster SessionShowcase+
Format · ShowcasePoster SessionPresenters display work; attendees browse and ask questions. Some interaction, not structured work.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
7:30 am - 9:00 amContinental BreakfastMealWellbeing+
Format · LogisticsMealA pacing block. Can carry unstructured networking, not scored as participant work.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
9:00 am - 10:00 amHide details ▾UnknownUnknown+
Format · BroadcastUnknownFormat not classified from the source; treated as a broadcast block by default.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventOSDI '25 and USENIX ATC '25 Joint Keynote AddressKeynoteThought Leadership+
Format · BroadcastKeynoteA featured talk from the stage. Builds awareness and energy, produces no participant output on its own.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
10:00 am - 10:30 amCoffee and Tea BreakBreakWellbeing+
Format · LogisticsBreakA pacing or recovery block between sessions.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
10:30 am - 10:45 amOpening Remarks and AwardsOpening RemarksOrientation+
Format · BroadcastOpening RemarksFraming or welcome from the stage. Orients the room, not participatory.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventFineMem: Breaking the Allocation Overhead vs. Memory Waste Dilemma in Fine-Grained Disaggregated Memory ManagementBreakWellbeing+
Format · LogisticsBreakA pacing or recovery block between sessions.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
12:45 pm - 2:00 pmSymposium LuncheonMealWellbeing+
Format · LogisticsMealA pacing block. Can carry unstructured networking, not scored as participant work.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventMeta Platforms Inc. is a social media company whose products require high availability and low latency. Meta’s services run in multiple geographic locations around the world and use asynchronous replication to keep the numerous cached copies of the datastore in sync. This setup reduces consistency in order to meet availability and latency requirements. Eventual consistency due to asynchronous replication causes issues for Meta’s services, ranging from minor annoyances to product-breaking bugs. Therefore, we ask: can we put meaningful bounds on how long it takes writes to be visible while maintaining the scalability afforded by eventual consistency?BreakWellbeing+
Format · LogisticsBreakA pacing or recovery block between sessions.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
6:00 pm - 7:30 pmOSDI '25 Poster Session and ReceptionPoster SessionShowcase+
Format · ShowcasePoster SessionPresenters display work; attendees browse and ask questions. Some interaction, not structured work.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventWould you like to share a provocative opinion, interesting preliminary work, or a cool idea that will spark discussion at this year's OSDI? The poster session is the perfect venue to introduce such new or ongoing work. Poster presenters will have the opportunity to discuss their work, get exposure, and receive feedback from other attendees during the in-person evening reception. View the list of accepted posters.Poster SessionShowcase+
Format · ShowcasePoster SessionPresenters display work; attendees browse and ask questions. Some interaction, not structured work.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
7:30 pm - 8:30 pmUSENIX 50th Anniversary CelebrationUnknownUnknown+
Format · BroadcastUnknownFormat not classified from the source; treated as a broadcast block by default.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventIn this paper, we first show that the data plane can be made fast with no or O(1) caching by loading parameters through the compute network between GPUs because: (1) its speed is comparable to host cache and is underutilized, and (2) scaling multiple instances requires no or O(1) caching with network-optimized multicast. Second, autoscaling can be made live by breaking the scaling abstraction for inference from a coarse-grained instance-level to a fine-grained layer-level. This allows us to offload the layer computation from the overloaded serving instances to the scaled ones without waiting for the parameters to be fully loaded.BreakWellbeing+
Format · LogisticsBreakA pacing or recovery block between sessions.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventTraining with Confidence: Catching Silent Errors in Deep Learning Training with Automated Proactive ChecksTrainingSkill Building+
Format · Participant workTrainingGuided skill building where participants practice. Counts as participant work and learning transfer.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventTraining deep learning (DL) models is a complex process, making it prone to silent errors that are challenging to detect and diagnose. This paper presents TRAINCHECK, a framework that takes a proactive checking approach to address silent training errors. TRAINCHECK automatically infers invariants tailored for DL training. It uses these invariants to proactively detect silent errors during the training process while providing debugging help. To evaluate TRAINCHECK, we reproduce 20 real-world silent training errors with diverse root causes. TRAINCHECK successfully detects 18 errors within a single training iteration. It also uncovers 6 unknown bugs in popular training libraries that lead to silent errors.TrainingSkill Building+
Format · Participant workTrainingGuided skill building where participants practice. Counts as participant work and learning transfer.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventTo illustrate the framework’s practical value, we present two case studies: one on file and storage systems, and another analyzing kernel synchronization to uncover missed optimization opportunities. Furthermore, we introduce SysGPT, a fine-tuned GPT model trained on curated literature analysis, which offer context-aware performance suggestions. SysGPT’s outputs are more specific and feasible than GPT-4’s, aligning with core strategies from recent research without direct exposure, demonstrating its utility as an optimization assistant.DemoShowcase+
Format · Participant workDemoA hands-on or applied walkthrough that invites attendee questions and direct engagement.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventWeighted bandwidth allocation is a powerful abstraction that has a wide range of use cases in modern data center networks. However, realizing highly agile and precise weighted bandwidth allocation for large-scale cloud environments is fundamentally challenging. In this paper, we propose Söze, a lightweight decentralized weighted bandwidth allocation system that leverages simple network telemetry features of commodity Ethernet switches. Given the flow weights, Söze can effectively use the telemetry information to compute and enforce the weighted bandwidth allocations without per-flow, topology, or routing knowledge. We demonstrate the effectiveness of Söze through simulations and testbed experiments, improving TPC-H jobs completion time by up to 0.59× and 0.79× on average.DemoShowcase+
Format · Participant workDemoA hands-on or applied walkthrough that invites attendee questions and direct engagement.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventUnderstanding Stragglers in Large Model Training Using What-if AnalysisTrainingSkill Building+
Format · Participant workTrainingGuided skill building where participants practice. Counts as participant work and learning transfer.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventThis paper identifies three previously overlooked sources of latency: (1) control path latency , stemming from interactions within the serverless runtime; (2) resource contention latency , arising under high concurrency and sustained execution; and (3) user code initialization latency , which reflects the trade-off between resource efficiency and startup performance. To address these challenges, we propose a suite of novel techniques that overcome key limitations in existing approaches. These techniques are designed to be both adaptable to real-world workloads and scalable to large deployments. Our system, AFaaS (short for Ant FaaS), reduces cold start latency to the millisecond level. AFaaS has been deployed in production for over 18 months and has consistently demonstrated stable performance at scale.DemoShowcase+
Format · Participant workDemoA hands-on or applied walkthrough that invites attendee questions and direct engagement.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventZEN: Empowering Distributed Training with Sparsity-driven Data SynchronizationTrainingSkill Building+
Format · Participant workTrainingGuided skill building where participants practice. Counts as participant work and learning transfer.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventThis paper introduces Tintin , an HPC profiling infrastructure with a modular three-component design that addresses both challenges. Tintin introduces mechanisms to mitigate multiplexing errors by characterizing uncertainty at runtime, scheduling events to minimize it, and reporting uncertainty to applications. It also proposes the Event Profiling Context (ePX) as a new OS primitive to unify diverse profiling requirements. Tintin is evaluated using benchmarks as well as real-world resource orchestration, performance debugging, and intrusion detection systems, to demonstrate its ability to improve hardware profiling with low runtime overhead.DemoShowcase+
Format · Participant workDemoA hands-on or applied walkthrough that invites attendee questions and direct engagement.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
6:00 pm - 7:30 pmUSENIX ATC '25 Poster Session and ReceptionPoster SessionShowcase+
Format · ShowcasePoster SessionPresenters display work; attendees browse and ask questions. Some interaction, not structured work.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventThe USENIX ATC '25 poster session and reception will feature posters by authors presenting their work at the conference. View the list of accepted posters.Poster SessionShowcase+
Format · ShowcasePoster SessionPresenters display work; attendees browse and ask questions. Some interaction, not structured work.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
7:30 pm - 8:30 pmTribute to USENIX ATCUnknownUnknown+
Format · BroadcastUnknownFormat not classified from the source; treated as a broadcast block by default.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventWe contend that the bottleneck stems from an unnecessary entanglement of two orthogonal producer-consumer structures: (1) memory allocation, where the core produces empty buffers that the NIC consumes to store packets; and (2) packet delivery, where the NIC produces incoming packets that the core consumes. We propose rxBisect, a new CPU-NIC interface that decouples these structures. RxBisect replaces each Rx ring with two separate rings corresponding to the two structures, allowing memory allocation to be performed independently of packet reception. RxBisect can thus pass empty buffers efficiently between cores upon imbalance, thereby eliminating the aforementioned bottleneck. We implement rxBisect with software emulation and find that it improves throughput by up to 20% and 37% relative to the state-of-the-art (shRing) and state-of-the-practice (per-core Rx rings).ReceptionRelationship Building+
Format · LogisticsReceptionA social or hospitality block. Pacing and informal connection, not participant work.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventLarge Language Models (LLMs) have resulted in a surging demand for planet-scale serving systems, where tens of thousands of GPUs continuously serve hundreds of millions of users. Consequently, throughput has emerged as a key metric that determines serving systems’ performance. Due to large model sizes and memory-intensive self-attention, LLM serving has been commonly assumed to be memory-bound. Through a detailed analysis, we show that despite having memory-intensive components, end-to-end LLM serving is compute bound for most common workloads and LLMs. Alas, most existing serving engines fall short from optimal compute utilization, because the heterogeneous operations that comprise LLM serving - compute, memory, networking - are executed sequentially within a device.NetworkingRelationship Building+
Format · LogisticsNetworkingUnstructured mixing. Can carry incidental connection, but is not scored as designed network work.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventWLB-LLM: Workload-Balanced 4D Parallelism for Large Language Model TrainingTrainingSkill Building+
Format · Participant workTrainingGuided skill building where participants practice. Counts as participant work and learning transfer.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
12:30 pm - 2:00 pmLunch (on your own)MealWellbeing+
Format · LogisticsMealA pacing block. Can carry unstructured networking, not scored as participant work.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventAiming to eliminate such overheads, we present Nos, a stripeless erasure coding scheme. It lets each node in the storage system independently replicate data to other nodes and encode received data replica into parities with XOR. Thus, Nos avoids the overheads caused by stripes. To enable failure recovery, Nos uses a combinatoric structure called symmetric balanced incomplete block design (SBIBD) to decide primary-to-backup node affinities during replication. Atop Nos, we further build Nostor, a distributed in-memory key-value store. Evaluations demonstrate that Nostor achieves 1.61x and 2.60x throughputs with similar or lower latencies than stripe-based erasure coding baselines.DemoShowcase+
Format · Participant workDemoA hands-on or applied walkthrough that invites attendee questions and direct engagement.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
5:30 pm - 5:35 pmClosing RemarksClosing RemarksOrientation+
Format · BroadcastClosing RemarksClosing framing from the stage. Wraps the event, not participatory.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
The Full Reading
Why It Ranks This Way +
Calibrated from GES design 48/100 and verified 48/100 with no fourth-loop cap.
Reader Takeaway. For a reader, this is a useful but still incomplete public example: it reads as an action-oriented convening, with the strongest visible signal in future-of-work fit and learning transfer and the biggest open question around follow through and network design. The practical test is whether the published agenda connects the room to post-event continuation and evidence.
Strongest signals: Future-of-Work Fit, Learning Transfer, and Participation Architecture. Weakest signals: Follow Through, Network Design, and Evidence Maturity.
How This Agenda Could Improve +
- Add named owners, dates, implementation checkpoints, and a visible post-event continuation path.
- Replace generic networking blocks with designed introductions, ask-offer exchanges, peer groups, or bridge-building rituals.
- Add baseline measurement, comparison logic, tracking, or post-event impact reporting so effectiveness is not inferred only from format.
Fastest next move: Add named owners, dated next steps, and a visible continuation path before treating the event as outcome-ready.
Role-Specific Reading +
Sponsor lens
Look beyond exposure. Strong sponsor value would show qualified interaction, problem work, buyer learning, customer evidence, or follow-up. The practical sponsor move is to look for structured introductions, buyer-seller fit, and relationship persistence.
Designer lens
The agenda is useful as a pattern sample from usenix.org. Redesign attention should go first to the lowest-scoring pillars; in practice, turn the thinnest agenda blocks into participant work.
Executive lens
Treat the visible agenda as an operating plan. The executive move is to require owners, dates, and evidence before treating the event as strategic. If owners, proof, and follow-through are not visible, the public record does not yet prove strategic movement.
Aggregator lens
Treat the source URL as evidence, not decoration. The data-product move is to label the source boundary clearly before ranking the record before ranking or syndicating the record.
What GES Means Here +
The Gathering Effectiveness Score is a strict 0-100 public-evidence reading of the agenda across eight pillars. It rewards visible participant work, follow-through, transfer, network design, and proof mechanisms more than polish, speaker fame, attendance, or satisfaction.
Visible mechanisms: Participant work, Commitments, Feedback, Network design, Learning transfer, Personalization.
Evidence boundary: Scores reflect visible agenda/source evidence and should not be read as proof of causal event impact.
Limitations, Score Caps, and Review Flags +
Limitations
- No baseline measurement is visible.
Score caps
- No fourth-loop score cap applied.
Review flags
- No tracking, validation, feedback, or impact measurement found in the visible source text.
- High cleanup rate: many extracted rows were hidden or merged as fragments.
Is this proof the event worked? +
No. This is a strict public-evidence reading of the agenda. Proof would require baseline, comparison, follow-up, attribution, and impact evidence beyond the listing.
What should a reader inspect first? +
Start with the source URL, then compare the eight pillar scores against the agenda rows. The biggest opportunities usually sit in follow-through, evidence maturity, and participant work.
Why publish weak records? +
Weak records are part of the map. They show where public agendas still describe sessions and speakers more often than outcomes, commitments, transfer, or proof.
How should I use the rows? +
Read the agenda rows as the visible design trace: formats, purposes, and evidence labels show what the public source made inspectable, not everything that happened in the room. This is a source-grounded interpretation of the public agenda record, not a copy of the source, and not an endorsement of the event.
Where To Go Next
Compare this agenda against other Academic / Research / Science events scored on the same eight pillars.