MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2768141781 · doi:10.1109/ficloud.2017.52

Cloud Task Scheduling Based on Swarm Intelligence and Machine Learning

2017· article· en· W2768141781 on OpenAlexaff
Gaith Rjoub, Jamal Bentahar

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCloud Computing and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceCloudSimCloud computingJob shop schedulingDistributed computingScheduling (production processes)Load balancing (electrical power)Dynamic priority schedulingByteParallel computingMathematical optimizationOperating systemSchedule

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cloud computing is the expansion of parallel computing, distributed computing. The technology of cloud computing becomes more and more widely used, and one of the fundamental issues in this cloud environment is related to task scheduling. However, scheduling in Cloud environments represents a difficult issue since it is basically NP-complete. Thus, many variants based on approximation techniques, especially those inspired by Swarm Intelligence (SI) have been proposed. This paper proposes a machine learning algorithm to guide the cloud choose the scheduling technique by using multi criteria decision to optimize the performance. The main contribution of our work is to minimize the makespan of a given task set. The new strategy is simulated using the CloudSim toolkit package where the impact of the algorithm is checked with different numbers of VMs varying from 2 to 50, and different task sizes between 30 bytes and 2700 bytes. Experiment results show that the proposed algorithm minimizes the execution time and the makespan between 7% and 75%, and improves the performance of the load balancing scheduling.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.858
Threshold uncertainty score0.612

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.226 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations24
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCloud Computing and Resource ManagementFrench-language works237,207