mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Self-Adaptive Trade-off Decision Making for Autoscaling Cloud-Based Services

arXiv 1608.05917 ↗First posted 21 Aug 2016cs.DC cs.SEcited by 17

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Elasticity in the cloud is often achieved by on-demand autoscaling. In such context, the goal is to optimize the Quality of Service (QoS) and cost objectives for the cloud-based services. However, the difficulty lies in the facts that these objectives, e.g., throughput and cost, can be naturally conflicted, and the QoS of cloud-based services often interfere due to the shared infrastructure in cloud. Consequently, dynamic and effective trade-off decision making of autoscaling in the cloud is necessary, yet challenging. In particular, it is even harder to achieve well-compromised trade-offs, where the decision largely improves the majority of the objectives, while causing relatively small degradations to others. In this paper, we present a self-adaptive decision making approach for autoscaling in the cloud. It is capable to adaptively produce autoscaling decisions that lead to well-compromised trade-offs without heavy human intervention. We leverage on ant colony inspired multi-objective optimization for searching and optimizing the trade-offs decisions, the result is then filtered by compromise-dominance, a mechanism that extracts the decisions with balanced improvements in the trade-offs. We experimentally compare our approach to four state-of-the-arts autoscaling approaches: rule, heuristic, randomized and multi-objective genetic algorithm based solutions. The results reveal the effectiveness of our approach over the others, including better quality of trade-offs and significantly smaller violation of the requirements.

Key facts. Cited by 17 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 21 Aug 2016.

Builds on

No reference list yet.

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2021: 2; 2022: 4; 2023: 1; 2024: 4; 2025: 6.

17 papers.

Sort:

  1. 2021Multi-Objectivizing Software Configuration Tuning (for a single performance concern)cited by 27
  2. 2023Do Performance Aspirations Matter for Guiding Software Configuration Tuning?cited by 21
  3. 2021MMO: Meta Multi-Objectivization for Software Configuration Tuningcited by 19
  4. 2022The Weights can be Harmful: Pareto Search versus Weighted Search in Multi-Objective Search-Based Software Engineeringcited by 17
  5. 2024Predicting Configuration Performance in Multiple Environments with Sequential Meta-learningcited by 17
  6. 2022Lifelong Dynamic Optimization for Self-Adaptive Systems: Fact or Fiction?cited by 16
  7. 2024Adapting Multi-objectivized Software Configuration Tuningcited by 13
  8. 2022Planning Landscape Analysis for Self-Adaptive Systemscited by 12
  9. 2025Distilled Lifelong Self-Adaptation for Configurable Systemscited by 11
  10. 2022Does Configuration Encoding Matter in Learning Software Performance? An Empirical Study on Encoding Schemescited by 10
  11. 2025Faster Configuration Performance Bug Testing with Neural Dual-level Prioritizationcited by 9
  12. 2024Deep Configuration Performance Learning: A Systematic Survey and Taxonomycited by 8
5 more
  1. 2025Dually Hierarchical Drift Adaptation for Online Configuration Performance Learningcited by 7
  2. 2025Learning Software Bug Reports: A Systematic Literature Reviewcited by 3
  3. 2025CoTune: Co-evolutionary Configuration Tuningcited by 2
  4. 2025Light over Heavy: Automated Performance Requirements Quantification with Linguistic Inducementcited by 2
  5. 2024Contexts Matter: An Empirical Study on Contextual Influence in Fairness Testing for Deep Learning Systemscited by 0