MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401943715 · doi:10.1109/cloud62652.2024.00039

A Comparative Analysis of Generative Adversarial Networks for Generating Cloud Workloads

2024· article· en· W4401943715 on OpenAlexaff
Niloofar Sharifisadr, Diwakar Krishnamurthy, Yasaman Amannejad

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic Prediction and Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsMount Royal UniversityUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdversarial systemComputer scienceCloud computingGenerative grammarGenerative adversarial networkArtificial intelligenceDistributed computingDeep learningOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs) have been highly successful in areas such as image generation, their efficacy in generating time series data, specifically for cloud workload applications, is not yet very well-established. Several GAN architectures have been proposed for time series generation, however there is a lack of comprehensive comparative analysis among these models for different real-world datasets in cloud workload domain. Additionally, prior research has not thoroughly explored the performance of models in relation to dataset attributes, including length of the data sequences, their seasonality and stationarity. This paper bridges this gap by focusing on cloud work-load time series data. We compare TimeGAN, RGAN, TTS- GAN, and V-GAN architectures using three real-world trace datasets-Alibaba 2017, Alibaba 2018, and Azure-to evaluate their performance when applied to these datasets with diverse characteristics. We intend this study to be an empirical guide for practitioners and researchers to choose the most appropriate GAN model based on the unique characteristics of their time series data. In this paper, we introduced a way to employ existing statistical measures to preprocess and characterize the datasets from varying standpoints. Then we used these datasets to assess the quality of these models' outputs qualitatively and quantitatively with respect to diversity, fidelity, and usability, for each kind of the input data. Our findings revealed the capabilities and limitations of each model, with regards to data characteristics such as sequence length, seasonality and stationarity. Based on our results, TimeGAN and TTS-GAN emerged as top-performing models in general across different datasets and sequence lengths. TimeGAN showed superiority with capturing short term tem-poral dynamics, while TTS-GAN outperformed in capturing long term dependencies. The transformer-based architecture employed in TTS-GAN makes it adept for handling highly seasonal data across both short and long sequence lengths. Conversely, TimeGAN demonstrated superior performance in accurately capturing highly seasonal data over shorter periods.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTraffic Prediction and Management TechniquesFrench-language works237,207