MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2990732744 · doi:10.1145/3368235.3368846

Resource Allocation for Multiple Workflows in Cloud-Fog Computing Systems

2019· article· en· W2990732744 on OpenAlexafffund
Jean Lucas de Souza Toniolli, Brigitte Jaumard

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicIoT and Edge/Fog Computing
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersCanadian Network for Research and Innovation in Machining Technology, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCloud computingComputer scienceDistributed computingWorkflowFog computingScheduling (production processes)Workflow management systemJob shop schedulingAdaptation (eye)HeuristicCluster analysisThe InternetComputer networkDatabaseOperating systemArtificial intelligenceMathematical optimization

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Constant innovations in the Internet of Things (IoT) in latest years have generated large amounts of data, putting pressure on the infrastructure of cloud computing. Fog computing has recently become a popular computing paradigm that can provide computing resources close to the end users and solve multiple issues with the current cloud-only systems. However, the scheduling of workflow applications in the cloud-fog environment to find the best tradeoff between makespan and price is facing enormous challenges. To address such a challenge, this paper presents an adaptation of the Path-Clustering Heuristic to the cloud-fog environment for multiple workflows. Firstly, we define the models for workflow execution time and resource cost in fog computing.Afterwards, we describe the newly proposed algorithms. We validate the efficiency of the algorithms with extensive simulation. Experimental results show that our scheduling adaptation achieves better performance while keeping similar costs compared to others.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.771
Threshold uncertainty score0.508

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.217 · 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

Citations20
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicIoT and Edge/Fog ComputingFrench-language works237,207