MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2785933625 · doi:10.1145/3177755

An Online Emergency Demand Response Mechanism for Cloud Computing

2018· article· en· W2785933625 on OpenAlexaff
Ruiting Zhou, Zongpeng Li, Chuan Wu

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Transactions on Modeling and Performance Evaluation of Computing Systems · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSmart Grid Energy Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsCloud computingComputer scienceServerProvisioningOnline algorithmMechanism designScheduling (production processes)Distributed computingDatabaseMathematical optimizationOperating systemAlgorithmMicroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article studies emergency demand response (EDR) mechanisms from a data center perspective, where a cloud participates in a mandatory EDR program while receiving computing job bids from cloud users in an online fashion. We target a realistic EDR mechanism where (i) the cloud provider dynamically packs different types of resources on servers into requested VMs and computes job schedules to meet users’ requirements, (ii) the power consumption of servers in the cloud is limited by the grid through the EDR program, and (iii) the operation cost of the cloud is considered in the calculation of social welfare, measured by an electricity cost that consists of both volume charge and peak charge. We propose an online auction for dynamic cloud resource provisioning that is under the control of the EDR program, runs in polynomial time, achieves truthfulness, and close-to-optimal social welfare for the cloud ecosystem. In the design of the online auction, we first propose a new framework, compact exponential LPs, to handle job scheduling constraints in the time domain. We then develop a posted pricing auction framework toward the truthful online auction design, which leverages the classic primal-dual technique for approximation algorithm design. We evaluate our online auctions through both theoretical analysis and empirical studies driven by real-world traces.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations7
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM Transactions on Modeling and Performance Evaluation of Computing SystemsSame topicSmart Grid Energy ManagementFrench-language works237,207