Dynamic formation of service communities in the cloud under distribution and incomplete information settings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Communities that gather functionally identical or complementary cloud services aim to provide better visibility, efficiency, and market share. This paper investigates the issue of forming these communities in distributed decision‐making settings under incomplete information. By incomplete information, we mean only partial information about the individual performance of cloud services within communities and about how they will behave within these communities is available. Forming communities in these particular settings is still an open problem. Most of the existing models require real‐time global knowledge about the services and high computational complexity, which makes the community formation extremely hard and time‐consuming. In this paper, we propose a strategic Distributed Decision‐making Mechanism (DDM) that regulates the cloud services decision‐making process. DDM first generates an initial set of data based on information obtained from existing cloud services regarding their single and cooperative efficiency. By analyzing this set and on the basis of a distance function, the decision‐making mechanism with regard to which community to form is implemented as a decision profile of strategies and their expected utility computed in terms of computational efficiency. DDM efficiently and systematically helps 1) communities find appropriate cloud services to invite as new members and 2) single services find suitable communities to join. To evaluate the proposed mechanism, we performed experiments using real data including 142 users and 4,000 cloud services obtained from the CloudArmor, CloudHarmony, and WS‐DREAM datasets. The experimental results show that our algorithms outperform the existing solutions.
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 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".