A Cloud Resource Evaluation Model Based on Entropy Optimization and Ant Colony Clustering
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The uncertainty and extreme large scale of cloud resources make task scheduling very difficult which affects the user quality of experience and probably result in a waste of cloud resources and energy consumption. Moreover, some resources stay in an unusable state for extended time. To take into account these problems a cloud resource evaluation model is proposed, termed Entropy Optimization Evaluation and ant colony clustering Model (EOEACCM). The model releases long-term unavailable resources to save energy. First, by mean of the entropy increasing minimum principle, the proposed model can maximize the system utilization and balance profits of both cloud resource providers and users. As a consequence, it can shorten task completion time. Secondly, the model narrows the task scheduling size and achieves optimal scheduling by clustering. To make the model more suitable for the dynamics of cloud resources, the model design improves pheromone update policies by fixing total path length in each function cycle when clustering by the ant colony algorithm. Evaluation of results using EOEACCM demonstrate that it may be applicable for resource management strategies for migration and release, an application which can effectively save energy. The proposed model was evaluated by simulation. Experiment results showed the positive effect of user satisfaction from entropy optimization, as well as scheduling time from clustering. Moreover, when the scale of tasks was large, this clustering algorithm performed much better than others. The clustering model also demonstrated better adaptability when some cloud resources were joined or terminated.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".