pith. sign in

arxiv: 2607.00455 · v1 · pith:4JKMTO2Knew · submitted 2026-07-01 · 💻 cs.DC

CloudyGUI: A Novel Python-based Framework for Auto-Scaling and Cloud Workload Analysis

Jyoti Bawa , Mohit Kaushik , Kuljit Kaur Chahal , Kamaljit Kaur This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-07-02 06:41 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.DC
keywords cloud computingauto-scalingworkload predictionsimulation frameworkXGBoostLSTMMAPE loopPython GUI
0
0 comments X

The pith

CloudyGUI supplies a Python GUI framework that simulates cloud auto-scaling through workload generation, XGBoost/LSTM prediction, and MAPE-loop control.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper presents CloudyGUI as a tool that lets researchers run controlled experiments on cloud resource management without building custom infrastructure. It chains three stages: synthetic workload creation that reproduces real traces, machine-learning forecasts of future demand, and a feedback loop that adjusts resources accordingly. Multiple layers of validation, including statistical tests against public datasets, are used to argue that the outputs stay close to observed cloud behavior. The GUI layer is shown to add only modest runtime cost compared with a pure command-line version. The central purpose is to lower the barrier so that more teams can prototype and compare auto-scaling policies.

Core claim

CloudyGUI is a simulation framework whose generated CPU and memory workloads pass a two-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test against real traces (p = 0.19 and p = 0.14), whose prediction-plus-MAPE auto-scaling pipeline can be exercised through an interactive GUI at 1.4x–4.67x the cost of a command-line equivalent, and whose realism is further confirmed by expert review.

What carries the argument

The three-stage pipeline of workload generation, XGBoost/LSTM prediction, and MAPE-loop auto-scaling, together with internal, intermediate, and external validation steps.

If this is right

  • Researchers can now run repeatable auto-scaling trials without provisioning live cloud instances.
  • Workload traces produced by the generator can serve as standardized inputs for comparing different scaling policies.
  • The modest GUI overhead suggests that interactive exploration remains practical for rapid policy prototyping.
  • Expert-validated realism supports using the tool for teaching and preliminary algorithm development.
  • The open Python implementation allows direct inspection and modification of each pipeline stage.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same pipeline structure could be reused as a plug-in module inside larger cloud simulators that currently lack workload generation or GUI layers.
  • If the XGBoost and LSTM components were swapped for newer models, the framework would immediately provide a controlled test bed for measuring improvement in scaling accuracy.
  • Publishing the validation datasets alongside the code would let independent groups rerun the K-S tests on their own traces.
  • Extending the GUI to export scaling traces in standard formats would ease integration with existing performance-analysis toolchains.

Load-bearing premise

The generated workloads and the decisions produced by the prediction-plus-MAPE pipeline will continue to resemble the behavior of actual cloud systems when used outside the tested datasets.

What would settle it

A new Kolmogorov-Smirnov test on an independent cloud trace that returns p-values below 0.05 for both CPU and memory would indicate that the synthetic workloads no longer match real distributions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.00455 by Jyoti Bawa, Kamaljit Kaur, Kuljit Kaur Chahal, Mohit Kaushik.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Conceptual Model for CloudyGUI Virtual Machine Monitor (VMM). The VMM is responsible for managing virtual machines on a given physical host. Its core functions include resource allocation, VM lifecycle manage￾ment, and isolation between VMs. In the illustrated architec￾ture, two VMMs (VMM1 and VMM2) are shown, each manag￾ing its own set of VMs. Virtual Machine (VM). A VM provides a virtualized comput￾ing e… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Architecture Diagram of CloudyGUI generated workload reflects a realistic distribution of tasks in a cloud environment. For example, the system might assign a 30% probability to a ‘data_processing’ job and a 25% probability to a ‘machine_learning’ job. Each of these job types has predefined characteristics, including a specific duration range, a failure rate, and a set of typi￾cal tasks. The ‘web_service’ … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Distribution of Jobs 1 2 3 4 5 Priority Level 0 2500 5000 7500 10000 12500 15000 17500 Number of Jobs Job Priority Distribution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Priority Distribution of jobs favored and thus creating a challenging and realistic scenario for evaluating advanced scheduling algorithms. Furthermore, the efficiency of resource consumption is sum￾marized in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Compositional breakdown of task types per job [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Heatmap visualizing the relationship between task types and Priorities [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Concurrency profile over a 7-day period • Proposed XGBoost: The proposed model significantly outperforms all baselines. It achieved near-perfect cor￾relation (R 2 > 0.99) for both resources and reduced the RMSE to negligible levels (1.00% for CPU and 12.92 MB for Memory). This demonstrates that capturing non-linear feature interactions is essential for minimizing prediction error in volatile cloud environ… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Instance CPU usage versus VM capacity CPU Saturated Memory Saturated Resource Type 0 10000 20000 30000 40000 Number of Saturated Instances VM Saturation Counts [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Counts of resource saturation events Exogenous variables.) performed significantly worse on Memory data (R 2 = 0.46), likely failing to capture the complex inter-dependencies between tasks. 2025-08-26 2025-08-27 2025-08-28 2025-08-29 2025-08-30 2025-08-31 2025-09-01 2025-09-02 Time 0 200 400 600 800 1000 Active Instances Concurrency Profile Over Time [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Comparison of actual versus predicted CPU usage [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Comparison of actual versus predicted Memory usage [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Comparison of actual versus predicted GPU usage [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Comparison of actual versus predicted Disk usage [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: The CloudyGUI interface for workload generation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_16.png] view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: CPU Comparison: CloudyGUI vs. Alibaba Cluster Trace [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_18.png] view at source ↗
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Memory Comparison: CloudyGUI vs. Alibaba Cluster Trace [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_19.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Purpose: Cloud computing environments are highly dynamic, creating major challenges for resource management. Accurate workload prediction is therefore essential for effective auto-scaling. To address this, we present CloudyGUI, a Python simulation framework with an easy-to-use GUI that allows researchers to test and validate resource management strategies. Methods: This framework employs a three-stage pipeline: workload generation, prediction (utilizing XGBoost and LSTM), and an auto-scaling system based on the MAPE loop. Validation includes internal, intermediate, and external methods to ensure system reliability. Results: CloudyGUI's generated workloads closely match real-world datasets. A two-sample K-S test confirms this alignment, showing strong p-values of 0.19 for CPU and 0.14 for memory. When compared to a command-line tool, the GUI adds only a minimal overhead of 1.4x-4.67x. Furthermore, expert review validates the tool's realism and practical usefulness. Conclusion: CloudyGUI fills a critical gap by providing an accessible and efficient platform for simulating auto-scaling in cloud applications, helping researchers develop advanced cloud management solutions.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents CloudyGUI, a Python-based simulation framework with GUI for cloud workload analysis and auto-scaling. It describes a three-stage pipeline consisting of workload generation, prediction via XGBoost and LSTM, and MAPE-loop auto-scaling, with validation via internal/intermediate/external methods. Results claim that generated workloads match real datasets per two-sample K-S tests (p=0.19 CPU, p=0.14 memory), GUI overhead is 1.4x-4.67x versus CLI, and expert review confirms realism and usefulness. The conclusion asserts that the tool fills a gap by enabling accessible simulation of auto-scaling strategies for researchers.

Significance. If the full pipeline were shown to produce realistic simulations with quantified prediction accuracy and scaling performance, CloudyGUI could serve as a practical open tool for cloud resource management research. The current manuscript, however, supplies quantitative support only for the workload-generation stage and overhead; absent metrics for the prediction and auto-scaling stages, the claimed utility for developing advanced management solutions remains unestablished.

major comments (2)
  1. [Results] Results section: only K-S p-values are reported for workload generation; no RMSE, MAPE, or other accuracy metrics are given for the XGBoost/LSTM prediction models, nor any evaluation of MAPE-loop outcomes (SLA violations, utilization, cost) against real traces.
  2. [Methods] Methods / Validation: the internal, intermediate, and external validation methods are named but supply no quantitative results beyond input-distribution matching, leaving the sufficiency of the three-stage pipeline for producing reliable simulations unestablished.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the phrase 'strong p-values' for 0.19 and 0.14 is imprecise; these values indicate failure to reject the null hypothesis of distributional equality rather than affirmative strength of match.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback. The comments correctly identify that the current manuscript provides limited quantitative support for the prediction and auto-scaling stages. We address each point below and will revise the manuscript accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Results] Results section: only K-S p-values are reported for workload generation; no RMSE, MAPE, or other accuracy metrics are given for the XGBoost/LSTM prediction models, nor any evaluation of MAPE-loop outcomes (SLA violations, utilization, cost) against real traces.

    Authors: We agree that the Results section reports only K-S tests for workload generation and GUI overhead. No prediction accuracy metrics (RMSE, MAPE) or auto-scaling performance metrics (SLA violations, utilization, cost) are provided. This is a genuine limitation of the current manuscript. In the revision we will add these evaluations using the existing XGBoost/LSTM implementations and MAPE-loop on both generated and real traces. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Methods] Methods / Validation: the internal, intermediate, and external validation methods are named but supply no quantitative results beyond input-distribution matching, leaving the sufficiency of the three-stage pipeline for producing reliable simulations unestablished.

    Authors: The three validation methods are described, yet only distribution-matching results (K-S tests) are quantified. We accept that this leaves the full pipeline's reliability insufficiently demonstrated. The revision will expand the Validation section with additional quantitative results for the intermediate and external stages of the complete pipeline. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: tool framework with direct empirical validation metrics

full rationale

The paper presents CloudyGUI as a Python framework implementing a three-stage pipeline (workload generation, XGBoost/LSTM prediction, MAPE-loop auto-scaling) and reports standalone validation results including K-S test p-values (0.19 CPU, 0.14 memory), GUI overhead factors (1.4x-4.67x), and expert review. No equations, parameter fits, or derivations are described that reduce claims to self-defined quantities. No self-citations are invoked as load-bearing uniqueness theorems or ansatzes. The central claim of filling a gap via an accessible simulation platform rests on the reported metrics themselves rather than any reduction to inputs by construction. This is a standard non-derivational tool paper whose validation steps are independent measurements.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract only; no free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are specified in the provided text.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5738 in / 1140 out tokens · 39846 ms · 2026-07-02T06:41:56.862089+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Mansouri, R

    N. Mansouri, R. Ghafari, B. M. H. Zade, Cloud computing simulators: A comprehensive review, Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory 104 (2020) 102144

    2020

  2. [2]

    Z. Cai, Q. Li, X. Li, Elasticsim: A toolkit for simulating workflows with cloud resource runtime auto-scaling and stochastic task execution times, Journal of Grid Computing 15 (2017) 257–272

    2017

  3. [3]

    S. K. Rout, J. Ravindra, A. Meda, S. N. Mohanty, V . Kavididevi, A dy- namic scalable auto-scaling model as a load balancer in the cloud com- puting environment., EAI Endorsed Transactions on Scalable Information Systems 10 (5) (2023)

    2023

  4. [4]

    Sabry, Cloud computing for dynamic systems, International Journal of Information and Communication Technology 3 (4) (2011) 354–369

    K. Sabry, Cloud computing for dynamic systems, International Journal of Information and Communication Technology 3 (4) (2011) 354–369

    2011

  5. [5]

    Asir Antony Gnana Singh, R

    D. Asir Antony Gnana Singh, R. Priyadharshini, E. Jebamalar Leavline, Analysis of cloud environment using cloudsim, in: Artificial Intelligence and Evolutionary Computations in Engineering Systems: Proceedings of ICAIECES 2017, Springer, 2018, pp. 325–333

    2017

  6. [6]

    E. T. Ngharamike, G. K. Ijemaru, O. Akinsanmi, O. Folorunsho, Cloud- based simulation tools for cloud testing: a review, FUOYE Journal of Engineering and Technology 3 (1) (2018)

    2018

  7. [7]

    T. Umar, M. Nadeem, M. Sajid, Simulation tools for cloud computing: A comparative study, in: Advances in Data-driven Computing and Intel- ligent Systems: Selected Papers from ADCIS 2022, V olume 2, Springer, 2023, pp. 239–251

    2022

  8. [8]

    Pandey, S

    R. Pandey, S. Gonnade, Comparative study of simulation tools in cloud computing environment, Int. J. Sci. Eng. Res 5 (5) (2014)

    2014

  9. [9]

    Siavashi, M

    A. Siavashi, M. Momtazpour, Cloudy: A pythonic cloud simulator, in: 2024 32nd International Conference on Electrical Engineering (ICEE), IEEE, 2024, pp. 1–5

    2024

  10. [10]

    Kapil, V

    D. Kapil, V . Mittal, A. Gupta, Cloud computing and simulation paradigms: A technical exploration and analysis, in: 2024 15th Interna- tional Conference on Computing Communication and Networking Tech- nologies (ICCCNT), IEEE, 2024, pp. 1–6

    2024

  11. [11]

    Sajitha, A

    A. Sajitha, A. Subhajini, Analysis of cloud sim toolkit for implement- ing energy efficient green cloud data centers, International Journal for Research in Applied Science & Engineering Technology (IJRASET) 6 (2018) 4613–4624

    2018

  12. [12]

    Kathiravelu, L

    P. Kathiravelu, L. Veiga, An adaptive distributed simulator for cloud and mapreduce algorithms and architectures, in: 2014 IEEE/ACM 7th Inter- national Conference on Utility and Cloud computing, IEEE, 2014, pp. 79–88

    2014

  13. [13]

    Maarouf, A

    A. Maarouf, A. Marzouk, A. Haqiq, Comparative study of simulators for cloud computing, in: 2015 International Conference on Cloud Technolo- gies and Applications (CloudTech), IEEE, 2015, pp. 1–8

    2015

  14. [14]

    K. Goga, O. Terzo, P. Ruiu, F. Xhafa, Simulation, modeling, and perfor- mance evaluation tools for cloud applications, in: 2014 Eighth Interna- tional Conference on Complex, Intelligent and Software Intensive Sys- tems, 2014, pp. 226–232.doi:10.1109/CISIS.2014.32

    work page doi:10.1109/cisis.2014.32 2014

  15. [15]

    M. A. Shahid, M. M. Alam, M. M. Su’ud, A systematic parameter anal- ysis of cloud simulation tools in cloud computing environments, Applied Sciences 13 (15) (2023) 8785

    2023

  16. [16]

    Kumar, R

    P. Kumar, R. Kumar, Issues and challenges of load balancing techniques in cloud computing: A survey, ACM computing surveys (CSUR) 51 (6) (2019) 1–35

    2019

  17. [17]

    Fakhfakh, H

    F. Fakhfakh, H. H. Kacem, A. H. Kacem, Simulation tools for cloud com- puting: A survey and comparative study, in: 2017 IEEE/ACIS 16th Inter- national Conference on Computer and Information Science (ICIS), IEEE, 2017, pp. 221–226

    2017

  18. [18]

    Sakellari, G

    G. Sakellari, G. Loukas, A survey of mathematical models, simulation approaches and testbeds used for research in cloud computing, Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory 39 (2013) 92–103

    2013

  19. [19]

    Bashar, Modeling and simulation frameworks for cloud computing en- vironment: A critical evaluation, in: International Conference on Cloud Computing and Services Science, 2014, pp

    A. Bashar, Modeling and simulation frameworks for cloud computing en- vironment: A critical evaluation, in: International Conference on Cloud Computing and Services Science, 2014, pp. 1–6

    2014

  20. [20]

    Núñez, J

    A. Núñez, J. L. Vázquez-Poletti, A. C. Caminero, G. G. Castañé, J. Car- retero, I. M. Llorente, icancloud: A flexible and scalable cloud infrastruc- ture simulator, Journal of Grid Computing 10 (2012) 185–209

    2012

  21. [21]

    X. Li, X. Jiang, P. Huang, K. Ye, Dartcsim: An enhanced user-friendly cloud simulation system based on cloudsim with better performance, in: 2012 IEEE 2nd International Conference on Cloud Computing and Intel- ligence Systems, V ol. 1, IEEE, 2012, pp. 392–396

    2012

  22. [22]

    M. S. Aslanpour, A. N. Toosi, J. Taheri, R. Gaire, Autoscalesim: A sim- ulation toolkit for auto-scaling web applications in clouds, Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory 108 (2021) 102245

    2021

  23. [23]

    A. V . Papadopoulos, A. Ali-Eldin, K.-E. Årzén, J. Tordsson, E. Elmroth, Peas: A performance evaluation framework for auto-scaling strategies in cloud applications, ACM Transactions on Modeling and Performance Evaluation of Computing Systems (TOMPECS) 1 (4) (2016) 1–31. 26

    2016

  24. [24]

    I. K. Kim, W. Wang, M. Humphrey, Pics: A public iaas cloud simulator, in: 2015 IEEE 8th International Conference on Cloud Computing, IEEE, 2015, pp. 211–220

    2015

  25. [25]

    O. D. Segun-Falade, O. S. Osundare, W. E. Kedi, P. A. Okeleke, T. I. Ijomah, O. Y . Abdul-Azeez, Assessing the transformative impact of cloud computing on software deployment and management, Computer Science & IT Research Journal 5 (8) (2024)

    2024

  26. [26]

    S. J. Shri, G. Karthiyayini, L. Vignesh, T. Upender, D. Shobana, L. S. K. Patra, Optimizing resource management and data security in cloud com- puting environments, in: 2024 3rd International Conference for Advance- ment in Technology (ICONAT), IEEE, 2024, pp. 1–6

    2024

  27. [27]

    Reddy, A

    P. Reddy, A. Verma, K. Verma, A. Singh, A. Soni, Efficient resource al- location in cloud computing environments: A modelling perspective, In- ternational Journal of Technology and Management 2 (2) (2023) 99–112. doi:10.63876/ijtm.v2i2.124. URLhttps://doi.org/10.63876/ijtm.v2i2.124

    work page doi:10.63876/ijtm.v2i2.124 2023

  28. [28]

    Alshathri, Comparative study on cloud computing simulation plat- forms, WSEAS Transactions on Computers 14 (2020) 172–177.doi: 10.46300/91015.2020.14.22

    S. Alshathri, Comparative study on cloud computing simulation plat- forms, WSEAS Transactions on Computers 14 (2020) 172–177.doi: 10.46300/91015.2020.14.22. URLhttps://doi.org/10.46300/91015.2020.14.22

    work page doi:10.46300/91015.2020.14.22 2020

  29. [29]

    Sanjalawe, et al., Cloud computing simulators: A review, in: 2023 24th International Arab Conference on Information Technology (ACIT), IEEE, 2023, pp

    Y . Sanjalawe, et al., Cloud computing simulators: A review, in: 2023 24th International Arab Conference on Information Technology (ACIT), IEEE, 2023, pp. 1–14

    2023

  30. [30]

    Vemasani, S

    P. Vemasani, S. M. Vuppalapati, S. Modi, S. Ponnusamy, Achieving agility through auto-scaling: Strategies for dynamic resource allocation in cloud computing, International Journal for Research in Applied Sci- ence and Engineering Technology (2024). URLhttps://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:269314674

    2024

  31. [31]

    M. J. Karamthulla, J. N. A. Malaiyappan, R. Tillu, Optimizing resource allocation in cloud infrastructure through ai automation: A comparative study, Journal of Knowledge Learning and Science Technology ISSN: 2959-6386 (online) 2 (2) (2023) 315–326.doi:10.60087/jklst. vol2.n2.p326

    work page doi:10.60087/jklst 2023

  32. [32]

    M. B. Taha, S. Fraihat, Y . Sanjalawe, A. Al-Daraiseh, S. R. Al-E’mari, Proactive auto-scaling for service function chains in cloud computing based on deep learning, IEEE Access 12 (2024) 38575–38587

    2024

  33. [33]

    M. C. Silva Filho, R. L. Oliveira, C. C. Monteiro, P. R. Inácio, M. M. Freire, Cloudsim plus: a cloud computing simulation framework pursu- ing software engineering principles for improved modularity, extensibility and correctness, in: 2017 IFIP/IEEE symposium on integrated network and service management (IM), IEEE, 2017, pp. 400–406

    2017

  34. [34]

    S. F. Piraghaj, A. V . Dastjerdi, R. N. Calheiros, R. Buyya, Container- cloudsim: An environment for modeling and simulation of containers in cloud data centers, Software: Practice and Experience 47 (4) (2017) 505– 521

    2017

  35. [35]

    Siavashi, M

    A. Siavashi, M. Momtazpour, Gpucloudsim: an extension of cloudsim for modeling and simulation of gpus in cloud data centers, The Journal of Supercomputing 75 (5) (2019) 2535–2561

    2019

  36. [36]

    Tighe, G

    M. Tighe, G. Keller, M. Bauer, H. Lutfiyya, Dcsim: A data centre sim- ulation tool for evaluating dynamic virtualized resource management, in: 2012 8th international conference on network and service management (cnsm) and 2012 workshop on systems virtualiztion management (svm), IEEE, 2012, pp. 385–392

    2012

  37. [37]

    S.-H. Lim, B. Sharma, G. Nam, E. K. Kim, C. R. Das, Mdcsim: A multi- tier data center simulation, platform, in: 2009 IEEE International Confer- ence on Cluster Computing and Workshops, IEEE, 2009, pp. 1–9

    2009

  38. [38]

    Sriram, Speci, a simulation tool exploring cloud-scale data centres, in: Cloud Computing: First International Conference, CloudCom 2009, Bei- jing, China, December 1-4, 2009

    I. Sriram, Speci, a simulation tool exploring cloud-scale data centres, in: Cloud Computing: First International Conference, CloudCom 2009, Bei- jing, China, December 1-4, 2009. Proceedings 1, Springer, 2009, pp. 381– 392

    2009

  39. [39]

    Ostermann, K

    S. Ostermann, K. Plankensteiner, R. Prodan, T. Fahringer, Groudsim: An event-based simulation framework for computational grids and clouds, in: European Conference on Parallel Processing, Springer, 2010, pp. 305– 313

    2010

  40. [40]

    S. K. Garg, R. Buyya, Networkcloudsim: Modelling parallel applications in cloud simulations, in: 2011 Fourth IEEE International Conference on Utility and Cloud Computing, IEEE, 2011, pp. 105–113

    2011

  41. [41]

    Badii, P

    C. Badii, P. Bellini, I. Bruno, D. Cenni, R. Mariucci, P. Nesi, Icaro cloud simulator exploiting knowledge base, Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory 62 (2016) 1–13

    2016

  42. [42]

    J. Son, A. V . Dastjerdi, R. N. Calheiros, X. Ji, Y . Yoon, R. Buyya, Cloudsimsdn: Modeling and simulation of software-defined cloud data centers, in: 2015 15th IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Cluster, Cloud and Grid Computing, IEEE, 2015, pp. 475–484

    2015

  43. [43]

    Wickremasinghe, R

    B. Wickremasinghe, R. N. Calheiros, R. Buyya, Cloudanalyst: A cloudsim-based visual modeller for analysing cloud computing environ- ments and applications, in: 2010 24th IEEE international conference on advanced information networking and applications, IEEE, 2010, pp. 446– 452

    2010

  44. [44]

    Teixeira Sá, R

    T. Teixeira Sá, R. N. Calheiros, D. G. Gomes, Cloudreports: An exten- sible simulation tool for energy-aware cloud computing environments, Cloud computing: Challenges, limitations and R&D solutions (2014) 127–142

    2014

  45. [45]

    R. N. Calheiros, R. Ranjan, A. Beloglazov, C. A. De Rose, R. Buyya, Cloudsim: a toolkit for modeling and simulation of cloud computing en- vironments and evaluation of resource provisioning algorithms, Software: Practice and experience 41 (1) (2011) 23–50

    2011

  46. [46]

    L. Liu, H. Wang, X. Liu, X. Jin, W. B. He, Q. B. Wang, Y . Chen, Green- cloud: a new architecture for green data center, in: Proceedings of the 6th international conference industry session on Autonomic computing and communications industry session, 2009, pp. 29–38

    2009

  47. [47]

    W. Chen, E. Deelman, Workflowsim: A toolkit for simulating scientific workflows in distributed environments, in: 2012 IEEE 8th international conference on E-science, IEEE, 2012, pp. 1–8

    2012

  48. [48]

    R. N. Calheiros, M. A. Netto, C. A. De Rose, R. Buyya, Emusim: an in- tegrated emulation and simulation environment for modeling, evaluation, and validation of performance of cloud computing applications, Software: Practice and Experience 43 (5) (2013) 595–612

    2013

  49. [49]

    Fittkau, S

    F. Fittkau, S. Frey, W. Hasselbring, Cdosim: Simulating cloud deploy- ment options for software migration support, in: 2012 IEEE 6th Interna- tional Workshop on the Maintenance and Evolution of Service-Oriented and Cloud-Based Systems (MESOCA), IEEE, 2012, pp. 37–46

    2012

  50. [50]

    A. Zhou, S. Wang, Q. Sun, H. Zou, F. Yang, Ftcloudsim: a simulation tool for cloud service reliability enhancement mechanisms, in: Proceedings Demo & Poster Track of ACM/IFIP/USENIX International Middleware Conference, 2013, pp. 1–2

    2013

  51. [51]

    Koltuk, A

    F. Koltuk, A. Yazar, E. G. Schmidt, Cloudgen: Workload generation for the evaluation of cloud computing systems, in: 2019 27th Signal Process- ing and Communications Applications Conference (SIU), IEEE, 2019, pp. 1–4

    2019

  52. [52]

    T. B. Hewage, S. Ilager, M. A. Rodriguez, R. Buyya, Cloudsim express: A novel framework for rapid low code simulation of cloud computing environments, Software: Practice and Experience 54 (3) (2024) 483–500

    2024

  53. [53]

    Jacquet, T

    P. Jacquet, T. Ledoux, R. Rouvoy, Cloudfactory: An open toolkit to gen- erate production-like workloads for cloud infrastructures, in: 2023 IEEE International Conference on Cloud Engineering (IC2E), IEEE, 2023, pp. 81–91

    2023

  54. [54]

    D. Chen, Y . Peng, J. Yue, L. Cheng, S. Gong, Error distribution smoothing for low-dimensional imbalanced regression, Knowledge-Based Systems 336 (2026) 115299.doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys. 2026.115299. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S0950705126000432

    work page doi:10.1016/j.knosys 2026

  55. [55]

    J. Bawa, K. Kaur Chahal, K. Kaur, Improving cloud resource manage- ment: an ensemble learning approach for workload prediction, The Jour- nal of Supercomputing 81 (10) (2025) 1138

    2025

  56. [56]

    Al-Dhaqm, S

    A. Al-Dhaqm, S. Razak, R. A. Ikuesan, V . R. Kebande, S. Hajar Othman, Face validation of database forensic investigation metamodel, Infrastruc- tures 6 (2) (2021) 13. 27

    2021