Data-Related Parameter Selection for Training Deep Learning Models Predicting Application Performance Degradation in Clouds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Applications deployed in clouds are susceptible to performance degradation due to diverse underlying causes such as infrastructure faults. To maintain the expected availability of these applications, Machine Learning (ML) models can be used to predict the impending application performance degradations to take preventive measures. However, the prediction accuracy of these ML models, which is a key indicator of their performance, is influenced by several factors, including training data size, data sampling intervals, input window and prediction horizon. To optimize these data-related parameters, in this paper, we propose a surrogate-assisted multi-objective optimization algorithm with the objective to maximize prediction model accuracy while minimizing the resources consumed for data collection and storage. We evaluated the proposed algorithm through two use cases focusing on the prediction of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for a 5 G core network and a web application deployed in two Kubernetes-based cloud testbeds. It is demonstrated that the proposed algorithm can achieve a normalized hypervolume of 99.5% relative to the optimal Pareto front and reduce search time for the optimal solution by 0.6 hours compared to other surrogates and by 3.58 hours compared to using no surrogates.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".