When to Renew Software Licences at HPC Centres? A Mathematical Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper we study a common problem faced by many high performance computing (HPC) centres: When and how to renew commercial software licences. Software vendors often sell perpetual licences along with forward update and support contracts at an additional, annual cost. Every year or so, software support personnel and the budget units of HPC centres are required to make the decision of whether or not to renew such support, and usually such decisions are made intuitively. The total cost for a continuing support contract can, however, be costly. One might therefore want a rational answer to the question of whether the option for a renewal should be exercised and when. In an attempt to study this problem within a market framework, we present the mathematical problem derived for the day to day operation of a hypothetical HPC centre that charges for the use of software packages. In the mathematical model, we assume that the uncertainty comes from the demand, number of users using the packages, as well as the price. Further we assume the availability of up to date software versions may also affect the demand. We develop a renewal strategy that aims to maximize the expected profit from the use the software under consideration. The derived problem involves a decision tree, which constitutes a numerical procedure that can be processed in parallel.
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 | 0.007 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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".