A Multi-Objective Optimization Scheduling Method Based on the Ant Colony Algorithm in Cloud Computing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For task-scheduling problems in cloud computing, a multi-objective optimization method is proposed here. First, with an aim toward the biodiversity of resources and tasks in cloud computing, we propose a resource cost model that defines the demand of tasks on resources with more details. This model reflects the relationship between the user's resource costs and the budget costs. A multi-objective optimization scheduling method has been proposed based on this resource cost model. This method considers the makespan and the user's budget costs as constraints of the optimization problem, achieving multi-objective optimization of both performance and cost. An improved ant colony algorithm has been proposed to solve this problem. Two constraint functions were used to evaluate and provide feedback regarding the performance and budget cost. These two constraint functions made the algorithm adjust the quality of the solution in a timely manner based on feedback in order to achieve the optimal solution. Some simulation experiments were designed to evaluate this method's performance using four metrics: 1) the makespan; 2) cost; 3) deadline violation rate; and 4) resource utilization. Experimental results show that based on these four metrics, a multi-objective optimization method is better than other similar methods, especially as it increased 56.6% in the best case scenario.
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 | 0.001 | 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".