MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Probability-Based Crossover Genetic Algorithm for Task Scheduling in Cloud Computing

2023· article· en· W4362496636 on OpenAlexaff
Saleh Al Shamaa, Georges Ankenmann

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCloud Computing and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceCloudSimCrossoverCloud computingJob shop schedulingScheduling (production processes)Dynamic priority schedulingDistributed computingFair-share schedulingProbabilistic logicTwo-level schedulingVirtual machineGenetic algorithmMathematical optimizationAlgorithmQuality of serviceArtificial intelligenceMachine learningOperating systemComputer networkScheduleMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In order to meet the rising demand for cloud services and remain in compliance with Service Level Agreements (SLA), service providers require effective task scheduling solutions capable of adapting to cloud computing’s elastic and dynamic characteristics.In this paper, we propose a novel approach to optimize task scheduling in cloud computing called a ProbabilityBased Crossover Genetic Algorithm (PxGA) with a primary objective of minimizing the tasks execution makespan. PxGA is an improvement on the Genetic Algorithm (GA) achieved by introducing the concept of Virtual Machine (VM) fitness and applying it to implement an effective weighted probabilistic crossover technique. Using the CloudSim simulation toolkit, we conduct our analysis of PxGA and evaluate it against standard and more recent task scheduling algorithms. The results of the simulations show that our proposed task scheduling algorithm is superior to other task scheduling algorithms in terms of the makespan, the VMs energy consumption, and the degree of imbalance (DoI). Moreover, the computational time (CT) for the PxGA decreases when compared against the other evaluated algorithms, except for its base GA.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.207
Threshold uncertainty score0.622

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.235 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCloud Computing and Resource ManagementFrench-language works237,207