Multi-objective hybrid genetic algorithm for task scheduling problem in cloud computing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The cloud computing systems are sorts of shared collateral structure which has been in demand from its inception. In these systems, clients are able to access existing services based on their needs and without knowing where the service is located and how it is delivered, and only pay for the service used. Like other systems, there are challenges in the cloud computing system. Because of a wide array of clients and the variety of services available in this system, it can be said that the issue of scheduling and, of course, energy consumption is essential challenge of this system. Therefore, it should be properly provided to users, which minimizes both the cost of the provider and consumer and the energy consumption, and this requires the use of an optimal scheduling algorithm. In this paper, we present a two-step hybrid method for scheduling tasks aware of energy and time called Genetic Algorithm and Energy-Conscious Scheduling Heuristic based on the Genetic Algorithm. The first step involves prioritizing tasks, and the second step consists of assigning tasks to the processor. We prioritized tasks and generated primary chromosomes, and used the Energy-Conscious Scheduling Heuristic model, which is an energy-conscious model, to assign tasks to the processor. As the simulation results show, these results demonstrate that the proposed algorithm has been able to outperform other methods.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".