Online Electricity Cost Saving Algorithms for Co-Location Data Centers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This work studies the online electricity cost minimization problem at a co-location data center. A co-location data center serves multiple tenants who rent the physical infrastructure within the data center to run their respective cloud computing services. Consequently, the co-location operator has no direct control over power consumption of its tenants, and an efficient mechanism is desired for eliciting desirable consumption patterns from the co-location tenants. Electricity billing faced by a data center is nowadays based on both the total volume consumed and the peak consumption rate. This leads to an interesting new combinatorial optimization structure on the electricity cost optimization problem, which also exhibits an online nature due to the definition of peak consumption. We model and solve the problem through two approaches: the pricing approach and the auction approach. For the former, we design an offline 2-approximation algorithm as well as an online algorithm with a small competitive ratio in most practical settings. For the latter, we design an efficient (2+ c )-competitive online algorithm, where c is a system dependent parameter close to 1.49, and then convert it into an efficient mechanism that executes in an online fashion, runs in polynomial time, and guarantees truthful bidding and (2+2 c )-competitive in social cost.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".