Towards Optimal Capacity Segmentation with Hybrid Cloud Pricing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cloud resources are usually priced in multiple markets with different service guarantees. For example, Amazon EC2 prices virtual instances under three pricing schemes -- the subscription option (a.k.a., Reserved Instances), the pay-as-you-go offer (a.k.a., On-Demand Instances), and an auction-like spot market (a.k.a., Spot Instances) -- simultaneously. There arises a new problem of capacity segmentation: how can a provider allocate resources to different categories of pricing schemes, so that the total revenue is maximized? In this paper, we consider an EC2-like pricing scheme with traditional pay-as-you-go pricing augmented by an auction market, where bidders periodically bid for resources and can use the instances for as long as they wish, until the clearing price exceeds their bids. We show that optimal periodic auctions must follow the design of m+1-price auction with seller's reservation price. Theoretical analysis also suggests the connections between periodic auctions and EC2 spot market. Furthermore, we formulate the optimal capacity segmentation strategy as a Markov decision process over some demand prediction window. To mitigate the high computational complexity of the conventional dynamic programming solution, we develop a near-optimal solution that has significantly lower complexity and is shown to asymptotically approach the optimal revenue.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".