Machine Learning Service Recommendation Based on Accuracy Related QoS Attributes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>Machine Learning (ML) is a topic of interest in computer science. Amazon AWS, Google Cloud and Microsoft Azure are examples of cloud platforms that provide ML services. Analysts can easily analyze data using online ML services, and most of the model processing is done using cloud services to provide fast and reliable results. Many of these services offer similar functionalities, and the challenge is how to select the best service for the data. Traditional approaches for service-selection depend only on general understanding of the service functionality. A better way is to consider both functional and non-functional requirements. Functional requirements determine overall behaviour of a service. Non-functional requirements establish how relevant a service is to the user’s query and refer to the Quality of Service (QoS) attribute. QoS- based service-selection has been studied in the service computing community for some time. However, characteristics of the input dataset are not usually considered in the selection process even though they might affect the QoS values of the service. In this dissertation, we investigate the impact of adding dataset features and other side information on the performance of QoS prediction and service recommendation. We focus on ML services since their QoS values are potentially highly dependent on the dataset.</p> <p>We propose two approaches for ML service recommendation and compare their performances. The first approach uses factorization for web service recommendation. We identify latent features of the datasets and the services and then recommend services by exploiting these latent variables. The second approach uses neural networks to identify latent features. We also integrate two sets of side information (dataset and service) in both approaches, and study the effect of these added features. In the experiment, we test our system using the real QoS data of 24 classification models running on 390 datasets downloaded from OpenML. In both implementations, models with side information outperform the basic model. To guarantee the best performance for our model, adding side information is necessary, which increases the predictive accuracy by 5% to 25%. Thus, we recommend integrating the side information in recommender systems, specifically including dataset features when recommending ML services. </p>
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".