Measuring Prediction Sensitivity of a Cloud Auto-scaling System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Elasticity is one of the key benefits of cloud computing which helps customers reduce the cost. Although elasticity is beneficiary in terms of cost, obligation of maintaining Service Level Agreements leads to necessity in dealing with the cost-performance trade-off. Proactive auto-scaling is an efficient approach to overcome this problem. In this approach scaling actions are generated based on prediction results. Recently, several research studies have been focusing on improving prediction accuracy in order to improve the efficiency of auto-scaling mechanisms. However, the sensitivity of auto-scaling mechanisms to the prediction results is neglected in the domain. In this work we have investigated the sensitivity of auto-scaling mechanisms to the prediction results by evaluating the influence of performance predictions accuracy on the auto-scaling actions. Specifically, we have compared actions of threshold based scaling techniques which are generated based on Support Vector Machine (SVM) and Neural Networks (NN) predictions. Our experimental results show that although SVM is more accurate than NN, scaling decisions made by the two algorithms are identical in 91.5% of the time. Furthermore, we have shown that the optimal training duration for SVM and NN is about 60% of experiment duration.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".