MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W105993467

Regression-based utilization prediction algorithms: an empirical investigation

2013· article· en· W105993467 on OpenAlexaff
Ian J. Davis, Hadi Hemmati, Richard C. Holt, Michael W. Godfrey, Douglas Neuse, Serge Mankovskii

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCloud Computing and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceCloud computingData miningFalse positive paradoxMachine learningDistributed computing
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract � Predicting future behavior reliably and efficiently is vital for systems that manage virtual services; such systems must be able to balance loads within a cloud environment to ensure that service level agreements (SLAs) are met at a reasonable expense. These virtual services while often comparatively idle are occasionally heavily utilized. Standard approaches to modeling system behavior (by analyzing the totality of the observed data, such as regression based approaches) tend to predict average rather than exceptional system behavior and may ignore important patterns of change over time. Consequently, such approaches are of limited use in providing warnings of future peak utilization within a cloud environment. Skewing predictions to better fit peak utilizations, results in poor fitting to low utilizations, which compromises the ability to accurately predict peak utilizations, due to false positives. In this paper, we present an adaptive approach that estimates, at run time, the best prediction value based on the performance of the previously seen predictions. This algorithm has wide applicability. We applied this adaptive technique to two large-scale real world case studies. In both studies, the results show that the adaptive approach is able to predict low, medium, and high utilizations accurately, at low cost, by adapting to changing patterns within the input time series. This facilitates better proactive management and placement of systems running within a cloud. Copyright � 2013 Ian Davis et al. Permission to copy is hereby granted provided the original copyright notice is reproduced in copies made.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.900
Threshold uncertainty score0.310

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.050
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.239 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCloud Computing and Resource ManagementFrench-language works237,207