A Recommendation Model for Energy-Efficient Data Mining Services Based on Data Properties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Currently, there is a big increase in the usage of data analytics applications and services because of the growth in the data produced from different sources. The QoS properties such as response time and latency of these services are important factors to decide which services to select. As a result of IT expansion, energy consumption has become a big issue. Therefore, establishing a QoS-based web service recommender system that considers energy consumption as one of the essential QoS properties represents a significant step towards selecting the energy efficient web services. This dissertation presents an experimental study on energy consumption levels and latency behavior collected from a set of data mining web services running on different datasets. Our study shows that there is a strong relation between the dataset properties and the QoS properties. Based on the findings from this study, a recommender system is built which considers three dimensions (user, service, dataset). The energy consumption values of candidate services invoked by specific users can be predicted for a given dataset. Afterwards, these services can be ranked according to their predicted energy values and presented to users. We propose three approaches to build our recommender system and we treat it as a context-aware recommendation problem. The dataset is considered as contextual information and we use a context-aware matrix factorization model to predict energy values. In the first approach, we adopt the pre-filtering model where the contextual information serves as a query for filtering relevant rating data. In the second approach, we propose a new method for the pre-filtering implementation. Finally, in the last approach, we adopt the contextual modeling method and we explore different ways of representing dataset information as contextual factors to investigate their impacts on the recommendation accuracy. We compare the proposed approaches with the baseline approaches and the results show the effectiveness of the proposed ones. Also, we compare the performance of the three approaches to discover the best-fit approach when being measured using different metrics. Both prediction and recommendation accuracy of the proposed approaches are significantly better than the baseline models.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".