Right-sizing Recommendations (RSR): Cloud Workload Conformal Prediction for Virtual Machines in Data Center Operations

Ali Pahlevan; Feng Cheng; Mehryar Majd

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 40 references

Right-sizing Recommendations (RSR): Cloud Workload Conformal Prediction for Virtual Machines in Data Center Operations

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that bootstrapped conformal prediction converts 5-minute vCPU utilization series into reliable mid- and long-term prediction intervals that can drive VM right-sizing recommendations.

desk verdict An applied benchmark with a real validity problem: the reliability claim for the conformal intervals rests on an untested residual-independence assumption, and the reporting is too thin to carry the conclusions. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.24773 v1 pith:PFP73MKV submitted 2026-06-12 cs.AI

Mehryar Majd , Feng Cheng , Ali Pahlevan This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.AI

keywords conformalpredictionintervalscloudworkloadforecastingright-sizingvirtualmachinestimeseriesbacktestingvCPUutilization

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper tries to establish that conformal prediction, applied to bootstrapped one-step-ahead residuals, produces trustworthy prediction intervals for mid- and long-term vCPU utilization forecasts of cloud VMs, and that those intervals can drive right-sizing recommendations. The authors build a forecasting pipeline on high-resolution 5-minute vCPU traces, compare seven machine-learning regressors under four backtesting strategies, and rank the models for long-lived VM workloads. A sympathetic reader would care because right-sizing decisions today rely on point forecasts or conservative historical maxima; if the intervals hold their stated coverage, operators can provision against an upper bound with a statistical guarantee, reducing both over-provisioning and SLA risk.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is bootstrap conformal prediction: after training a point forecaster, one-step-ahead residuals are resampled and added to the model's predictions to synthesize a forecast distribution, from which the alpha/2 and 1-alpha/2 empirical quantiles define the interval. This avoids normality assumptions on residuals and requires only that residuals be uncorrelated. The forecasting core uses a direct-recursive multi-step strategy (DirRec) inside the forecaster, with four backtesting regimes for evaluation.

What would settle it

Compute the Ljung-Box or similar autocorrelation test on the one-step-ahead residuals of a random sample of the long-lived VM series; if significant autocorrelation is found, or if empirical coverage of the reported intervals on a held-out test set falls materially below the nominal 1-alpha level, the central 'reliable prediction intervals' claim is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that bootstrapped residual conformal prediction turns recursive multi-step forecasts of vCPU utilization into prediction intervals whose upper bound is accurate enough for provisioning decisions, and that XGBoost and CatBoost are the consistently top-ranked regressors for long-lived VM workload profiles across all backtesting strategies. The ranking holds for upper-bound (PI) evaluation; for target-value MAE, linear regression is reported as the top model. The paper stops short of claiming the intervals are optimal, presenting them instead as a practical, modular route to uncertainty-aware right-sizing.

Load-bearing premise

The entire interval-reliability claim rests on the assumption that the one-step-ahead forecast residuals are uncorrelated, yet the vCPU time series are described as non-stationary, seasonal, and bursty, and the paper reports no test of residual autocorrelation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the intervals are valid, cloud operators can replace conservative historical-max upper bounds with statistically calibrated upper bounds from conformal intervals, lowering over-provisioning.
XGBoost and CatBoost emerge as the practical choices for large-scale long-horizon vCPU forecasting because they balance accuracy and runtime.
Refitting strategies, especially fixed-origin and rolling-origin backtesting, improve top-1 model placements, indicating that updating models on recent data sharpens the forecasts.
The modular pipeline can be applied to other VM metrics or datasets without redesign.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The paper does not test residual autocorrelation, so a natural extension is to diagnose whether the uncorrelated-residual premise actually holds on these workloads; if it fails, coverage guarantees weaken.
The ranking is based on limited VM candidates and focused on long-lived VMs; the same model hierarchy may not hold for short-lived or highly bursty workloads.
Because the study is univariate and vCPU-only, the approach could likely be extended to memory and multivariate forecasting, where memory footprint is currently absent from public cloud traces.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

This is a useful practice-oriented benchmark: applying bootstrap conformal prediction to seven regressors with four backtesting strategies on public Azure VM workloads is a sensible configuration, and the paper is honest about many of its limitations. It gives credit where due: public datasets, a reproducibility link, sane preprocessing (Savitzky-Golay, median imputation, outlier clipping), and a clear ranking of XGBoost/CatBoost as top performers for long-lived VMs, with an efficiency trade-off plot. Practitioners running cloud workload forecasts could get value from the model-vs-backtesting comparison.

But the central claim - that these are "reliable prediction intervals" - does not hold up as reported. The skforecast bootstrap method the paper relies on (Sec. III-D) explicitly assumes uncorrelated residuals, and the paper itself describes the vCPU series as non-stationary, seasonal, and bursty (Sec. IV-C). With recursive/DirRec forecasting, error autocorrelation is essentially guaranteed. No Ljung-Box or similar test is reported, and no empirical coverage validation is shown. The PICP-based rankings are therefore built on intervals whose validity is untested. The stress-test note is right, and the Limitations section (V-C) misses this specific threat.

The reporting is also too thin in several places. The train/test split in Sec. IV sums to 90%, leaving 10% unaccounted for. There are no numeric MAE/PICP tables, no error bars, no comparison against naive or SARIMA baselines even though such baselines are mentioned in the problem statement. The number of VMs used for the experiments is left as "limited VM candidates" without a concrete count. Hyperparameters, filter widths, and lag windows are not specified in the paper. These are all fixable, but as is they make it hard to reproduce or verify the rankings.

Who is this for? Cloud operators choosing models for VM right-sizing, and researchers interested in applied conformal prediction for time series - the latter more as a cautionary example of what not to skip. I would not cite it in my own work as a valid demonstration of conformal coverage, but it could be a useful empirical datapoint after the validity gaps are addressed.

Peer review: yes, send it out. A serious referee can push for the missing diagnostics and tables. The core experiment is worthwhile, but the paper currently overclaims the reliability of its intervals.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a forecasting pipeline for Azure VM vCPU utilization, combining seven ML regressors with bootstrap conformal prediction (via skforecast) to produce prediction intervals, and evaluates four backtesting strategies on long-lived VM candidates from the Azure Public Datasets V1/V2. The central claim is that the resulting intervals are reliable enough to support right-sizing recommendations, and that XGBoost/CatBoost are the top-performing models across backtesting strategies. The experimental section presents rankings as bar-chart frequencies and discusses efficiency trade-offs, while a limitations section acknowledges workload unpredictability and missing service-level metadata.

Significance. If established, the paper would provide a useful practical evaluation of conformal prediction for cloud workload forecasting and a model-ranking benchmark over publicly available Azure traces. Strengths include the use of public datasets, a reproducible GitHub repository, a broad set of regression models, and four backtesting strategies. However, the central reliability claim is not yet supported by the evidence: the bootstrap CP intervals are not validated for the non-stationary, autocorrelated time series studied, and the empirical results lack quantitative forecast-error and coverage numbers, baselines, and a precisely specified VM subset. The paper is therefore of interest to the cloud operations community, but the current draft requires substantial additional analysis before its conclusions can be accepted.

major comments (4)

[§III-D, §III-C2, §IV-C] The validity of the proposed conformal prediction intervals is not established. The paper states that skforecast's bootstrapping 'requires only that the residuals (errors) be uncorrelated' (§III-D), but the vCPU series are explicitly described as non-stationary, seasonal, and bursty (§IV-C), and the DirRec/recursive forecasting strategy propagates errors across steps (§III-C2). No autocorrelation test (e.g., Ljung-Box) is reported, and no empirical coverage evaluation (e.g., PICP per horizon) is provided. The only PICP-based ranking is mentioned as 'Likely' with no numeric support (§V-A). Without these diagnostics, the bootstrap intervals do not carry the conformal guarantee claimed, and the RSR upper-bound use case (where a miss can cause SLA violations) is not protected. This is a load-bearing issue for the paper's central claim and should be addressed either by switching to a split-co
[§V, Fig. 9] The empirical evaluation is presented only as absolute-frequency bar charts for Top-1 and Top-3 model counts. No numeric MAE or PICP values, no error bars, and no baseline comparisons (e.g., naive, SARIMA, or prior-work methods) are reported. The statement in §IV-C that 'we need models that are capable of making skillful forecasts compared to naive models and tuned SARIMA models' is never followed by such a comparison. Consequently, the claims of 'promising forecasting results' and the model rankings are not quantitatively substantiated. The paper should include tables with per-model and per-backtesting-strategy error and coverage metrics, and at least one baseline comparison.
[§V-A, Fig. 9] The VM subset used for the ranking experiments is unspecified. The caption of Fig. 9 refers to 'limited VM candidates due to expensive computation,' but the exact number of VMs, the selection criteria, the distribution across workload classes (Delay-insensitive/Interactive/Unknown), and the train/test split used for the ranking are not given. Without this information, the generalizability of the 'global top-tier models' claim cannot be assessed. Please state the sample size and the sampling procedure explicitly.
[§IV] There is a discrepancy in the data split. Section IV says 'we allocate the first 75% of each VM workload time series to training and validation/calibration. The remaining 15% ... is reserved for testing,' which leaves 10% of the data unaccounted for. For medium-scale forecasting, the ratio is stated as 85% training and 15% testing, but no equivalent allocation is given for the large-scale case. Since conformal prediction requires a proper calibration set, the missing 10% may be critical. Please clarify the exact split and the role of the calibration data in the interval construction.

minor comments (5)

[§III-A, Eq. (1)] Equation (1) is a tautological definition rather than a measurement equation. Consider removing or reformulating it to avoid confusion.
[§II, Fig. 3] The survey counts in Fig. 3 are presented without a methodology or a reference to the underlying survey. Please either cite the survey source or describe how the 63 publications were compiled.
[§IV-A, Fig. 7] Fig. 7 shows an 'Interactive-V2' trace with 5,422 observations (about 18 days), which appears inconsistent with the stated long-lifetime criterion of '≥29 consecutive days.' Please clarify whether this subplot is an example from a different filtering stage.
[§V-A] The sentence beginning 'Likely, the results of ranked ML-powered conformal forecasts...' is phrased as a conjecture. If PICP-based rankings were computed, present them as definitive results with values.
[References] The reference list has inconsistent formatting (e.g., incomplete entries, missing journal names, and inconsistent access-date conventions). A thorough cleanup is needed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: intervals and rankings come from held-out residuals and public-data backtests, not from fitted constants or self-citations.

full rationale

Walked the paper's derivation chain. Multi-step forecasts are built with DirRec (Sec. III-C2), and prediction intervals are constructed from bootstrapped residuals via empirical α/2 and 1−α/2 quantiles (Sec. III-D, Eq. 4); these intervals are then evaluated on held-out test portions of public Azure V1/V2 traces (Sec. IV), and model rankings come from backtested MAE/PICP and runtime (Sec. V). No quantity predicted is a fitted constant, no calibration parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no load-bearing claim is justified by a self-citation or by an imported uniqueness theorem. The only notable weakness is the validity premise that bootstrap CP 'requires only that the residuals (errors) be uncorrelated' (Sec. III-D), which may be violated by the non-stationary, seasonal, bursty vCPU series the paper itself describes (Sec. IV-C); this is an assumption/correctness risk, not a reduction of the output to the input. The Limitations section (Sec. V-C) acknowledges inherent unpredictability and missing metadata but discloses no circular step. Thus the result is self-contained against external public data and standard methodology, and the finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new theoretical entities. Its load-bearing assumptions are data/task assumptions about residual behavior and dataset representativeness, plus several unreported preprocessing/training hyperparameters that affect the reported rankings and intervals.

free parameters (5)

Train/test split ratio = 75%/15% (large-scale), 85%/15% (medium-scale)
Chosen by hand; determines calibration and test sizes; the 75%+15% split leaves 10% unaccounted and no justification is given.
Savitzky-Golay filter parameters = not reported
Window length and polynomial order are not given; denoising changes the residual distribution used for bootstrap intervals.
Z-score outlier threshold and clipping bounds = not reported
Outlier removal changes the tails of the error distribution and therefore the conformal intervals; thresholds are not stated.
Lag count / DirRec window = not reported
The series-to-supervised transform size determines model inputs; not specified in the paper.
Bootstrap replications and alpha = not reported
Number of bootstrap samples and confidence level set interval width; neither is reported.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Model residuals from recursive multi-step forecasting are uncorrelated.
Sec. III-D states bootstrap CP 'requires only that the residuals (errors) be uncorrelated'; no autocorrelation test is provided for 5-minute CPU data.
domain assumption Long-lived Azure V1/V2 VM traces are representative of hyperscaler workloads for right-sizing.
The paper filters to VMs with >=29 days of data and uses them as the evaluation population without comparing to shorter-lived or more volatile workloads.
domain assumption Average vCPU utilization is a sufficient univariate target; min/max and memory are ignorable.
Sec. III-F selects avg CPU only. The paper acknowledges memory traces are unavailable, but this constrains the right-sizing claim to CPU-only decisions.
standard math Conformal quantile calibration requires exchangeability of calibration and test residuals.
Standard CP theory invoked in Sec. III-D; exchangeability is not verified for non-stationary workload time series.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Right-sizing Recommendations (RSR): Cloud Workload Conformal Prediction for Virtual Machines in Data Center Operations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PFP73MKV

@misc{pith2026260724773,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Right-sizing Recommendations (RSR): Cloud Workload Conformal Prediction for Virtual Machines in Data Center Operations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PFP73MKV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.24773}
}

read the original abstract

Managing cloud infrastructure efficiently, especially in environments of large cloud providers or hyperscalers, requires optimizing the use of physical resources to minimize costs and maximize performance. Selecting the right virtual machine (VM) sizes is crucial to achieving cost efficiency in these dynamic environments. However, traditional VM allocation and scheduling approaches often fail to account for the fluctuating and unpredictable nature of VM utilization, leading to inefficiencies such as over- or under-provisioning of resources. High-quality interval prediction helps accurately capture uncertainty in cloud resource demand and supports cloud operators in efficient instance provisioning. As an effective and reliable framework for constructing prediction intervals (PIs), conformal prediction (CP) is used for mid- and long-term forecasting tasks in cloud computing environments. This study proposes a new data-driven PI construction approach using bootstrapping conformal prediction for modern, dynamic, data-driven Right-sizing Recommendations (RSR) to enhance provisioning for diverse application workloads on hyperscalers. By learning workload utilization patterns, identifying correlations across multiple time series, and predicting medium- to long-term utilization trends, this research seeks to improve the efficiency of cloud and data center operations through an AI/ML-based provisioning pipeline. Our study demonstrates that AI-driven models, powered by machine learning regression techniques and evaluated using backtesting, achieve promising forecasting results for cloud resource utilization. Additionally, we rank the selected models to identify top-performing approaches for long-life VM candidates. The proposed framework enhances right-sizing recommendations and supports more cost-effective resource allocation in dynamic cloud environments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.24773 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** The excerpt of the proposed pipeline architecture, empowered by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Annual publication trends (left) and proportions by prediction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (6 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Diagram of recursive multi-step forecasting (RMSF). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Diagram of the bootstrapping prediction process. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Preserving 5-minute sampling intervals maintains the original work [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Different classified virtual machine profiles with mid to long lifespans [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Distribution of workload classes and their corresponding share [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: We ranked VM candidates using Backtesting with refit and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

[1]

Resource central: Understanding and predicting workloads for improved resource management in large cloud platforms

Eli Cortez, Anand Bonde, Alexandre Muzio, Mark Russinovich, Marcus Fontoura, and Ricardo Bianchini. Resource central: Understanding and predicting workloads for improved resource management in large cloud platforms. InProceedings of the 26th Symposium on Operating Systems Principles, pages 153–167, 2017

2017
[2]

A review on machine learning methods for workload prediction in cloud computing

Mohammad Yekta and Hadi Shahriar Shahhoseini. A review on machine learning methods for workload prediction in cloud computing. In2023 13th International Conference on Computer and Knowledge Engineering (ICCKE), pages 306–311. IEEE, 2023

2023
[3]

Resource utilization prediction model for cloud datacentre: Survey.International Journal of Advanced Computer Science & Applications, 16(3), 2025

Doaa Bliedy, Mohamed H Khafagy, and Rasha M Badry. Resource utilization prediction model for cloud datacentre: Survey.International Journal of Advanced Computer Science & Applications, 16(3), 2025

2025
[4]

Application-oriented cloud workload prediction: A survey and new perspectives.Tsinghua Science and Technology, 30(1):34–54, 2024

Binbin Feng and Zhijun Ding. Application-oriented cloud workload prediction: A survey and new perspectives.Tsinghua Science and Technology, 30(1):34–54, 2024

2024
[5]

Interference-aware edge runtime prediction with conformal matrix completion.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.06428, 2025

Tianshu Huang, Arjun Ramesh, Emily Ruppel, Nuno Pereira, Anthony Rowe, and Carlee Joe-Wong. Interference-aware edge runtime prediction with conformal matrix completion.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.06428, 2025

arXiv 2025
[6]

Forecasting workload in cloud computing: towards uncertainty-aware predictions and transfer learning.Cluster Computing, 28(4):258, 2025

Andrea Rossi, Andrea Visentin, Diego Carraro, Steven Prestwich, and Kenneth N Brown. Forecasting workload in cloud computing: towards uncertainty-aware predictions and transfer learning.Cluster Computing, 28(4):258, 2025

2025
[7]

Multivariate resource usage forecasting and temporal accuracy in private cloud systems, 2025

Nils Persson Suorra. Multivariate resource usage forecasting and temporal accuracy in private cloud systems, 2025

2025
[8]

OTexts, 2018

Rob J Hyndman and George Athanasopoulos.Forecasting: principles and practice. OTexts, 2018

2018

Show all 40 references

[9]

Machine learning ap- proaches for estimation of prediction interval for the model output

Durga L Shrestha and Dimitri P Solomatine. Machine learning ap- proaches for estimation of prediction interval for the model output. Neural networks, 19(2):225–235, 2006

2006
[10]

Linearregression: Ordinary least squares linear model

Scikit-learn Developers. Linearregression: Ordinary least squares linear model. https://scikit-learn.org/stable/modules/generated/sklearn.linear model.LinearRegression.html
[11]

Svr: Support vector regression

Scikit-learn Developers. Svr: Support vector regression. https:// scikit-learn.org/0.16/modules/generated/sklearn.svm.SVR.html
[12]

Mlpregressor: Multi-layer perceptron re- gressor

Scikit-learn Developers. Mlpregressor: Multi-layer perceptron re- gressor. https://scikit-learn.org/stable/modules/generated/sklearn.neural network.MLPRegressor.html
[13]

Randomforestregressor: Random forest ensemble method for regression

Scikit-learn Developers. Randomforestregressor: Random forest ensemble method for regression. https://scikit-learn.org/stable/modules/ generated/sklearn.ensemble.RandomForestRegressor.html. GitHub source: https://github.com/scikit-learn/scikit-learn/blob/c5497b7f7/ sklearn/ens...

2024
[14]

Xgboost: Scalable and flexible gradient boost- ing

XGBoost Developers. Xgboost: Scalable and flexible gradient boost- ing. https://xgboost.readthedocs.io/en/stable/. GitHub repository: https: //github.com/dmlc/xgboost, accessed: 2024

2024
[15]

Catboost: Gradient boosting on decision trees

CatBoost Developers. Catboost: Gradient boosting on decision trees. https://catboost.ai/docs/en/. GitHub repository: https://github.com/ catboost/catboost/issues, accessed: 2024

2024
[16]

Lightgbm: A fast, distributed, high-performance gradient boosting framework

LightGBM Developers. Lightgbm: A fast, distributed, high-performance gradient boosting framework. https://lightgbm.readthedocs.io/en/latest/ index.html. GitHub repository: https://github.com/microsoft/LightGBM/ tree/master, accessed: 2024

2024
[17]

Machine Learning Mastery, 2017

Jason Brownlee.Introduction to time series forecasting with python: how to prepare data and develop models to predict the future. Machine Learning Mastery, 2017

2017
[18]

Backtesting forecasts — skforecast user guide

skforecast Developers. Backtesting forecasts — skforecast user guide. https://skforecast.org/0.16.0/user guides/backtesting. Accessed: Feb. 08, 2024

2024
[19]

The three types of backtests.Available at SSRN, 2024

Jacques Joubert, Dragan Sestovic, Illya Barziy, Walter Distaso, and Marcos Lopez de Prado. The three types of backtests.Available at SSRN, 2024

2024
[20]

skforecast, 5 2025

Joaquin Amat Rodrigo and Javier Escobar Ortiz. skforecast, 5 2025

2025
[21]

On the use of cross-validation for time series predictor evaluation.Information Sciences, 191:192–213, 2012

Christoph Bergmeir and Jos ´e M Ben´ıtez. On the use of cross-validation for time series predictor evaluation.Information Sciences, 191:192–213, 2012

2012
[22]

Con- formal prediction sets for ordinal classification.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:879–899, 2023

Prasenjit Dey, Srujana Merugu, and Sivaramakrishnan R Kaveri. Con- formal prediction sets for ordinal classification.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:879–899, 2023

2023
[23]

Integrating physics and data-driven approaches: An explainable and uncertainty- aware hybrid model for wind turbine power prediction.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.07344, 2025

Alfonso Gij ´on, Simone Eiraudo, Antonio Manjavacas, Daniele Salvatore Schiera, Miguel Molina-Solana, and Juan G ´omez-Romero. Integrating physics and data-driven approaches: An explainable and uncertainty- aware hybrid model for wind turbine power prediction.arXiv preprint ar...

2025 arXiv
[24]

Wind speed conformal prediction in wind farm based on algorithmic randomness theory

Guo-Rui Ji, Ze Dong, Dong-Feng Wang, Pu Han, and Da-Ping Xu. Wind speed conformal prediction in wind farm based on algorithmic randomness theory. In2008 International conference on machine learning and cybernetics, volume 1, pages 131–135. IEEE, 2008

2008
[25]

Conformal prediction in clinical medical sciences.Journal of Healthcare Informatics Research, 6(3):241– 252, 2022

Janette Vazquez and Julio C Facelli. Conformal prediction in clinical medical sciences.Journal of Healthcare Informatics Research, 6(3):241– 252, 2022

2022
[26]

John Wiley & Sons, 2017

William Q Meeker, Gerald J Hahn, and Luis A Escobar.Statistical intervals: a guide for practitioners and researchers. John Wiley & Sons, 2017

2017
[27]

A review and comparative analysis of univariate conformal regression methods

Jie Bao, Nicolo Colombo, Valery Manokhin, Suqun Cao, and Rui Luo. A review and comparative analysis of univariate conformal regression methods. InFourteenth Symposium on Conformal and Probabilistic Prediction with Applications (COPA 2025), pages 282–304. PMLR, 2025

2025
[28]

Jing Bi, Haitao Yuan, Shuang Li, Kaiyi Zhang, Jia Zhang, and Mengchu Zhou. Arima-based and multiapplication workload prediction with wavelet decomposition and savitzky–golay filter in clouds.IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems, 54(4):2495– 2506, 2024

2024
[29]

Accurate workload prediction for edge data centers: Savitzky-golay filter, cnn and bilstm with attention mechanism.Applied Intelligence, 52(11):13027–13042, 2022

Lei Chen, Weiwen Zhang, and Haiming Ye. Accurate workload prediction for edge data centers: Savitzky-golay filter, cnn and bilstm with attention mechanism.Applied Intelligence, 52(11):13027–13042, 2022

2022
[30]

Telemetry data gaps in azure public dataset

Eli Cortez. Telemetry data gaps in azure public dataset. https://github. com/Azure/AzurePublicDataset/issues/4, 2019. Accessed: 2025-08-08

2019
[31]

Saits: Self-attention-based impu- tation for time series.Expert Systems with Applications, 219:119619, 2023

Wenjie Du, David C ˆot´e, and Yan Liu. Saits: Self-attention-based impu- tation for time series.Expert Systems with Applications, 219:119619, 2023

2023
[32]

Diffusion-based time series data imputation for cloud failure prediction at microsoft 365

Fangkai Yang, Wenjie Yin, Lu Wang, Tianci Li, Pu Zhao, Bo Liu, Paul Wang, Bo Qiao, Yudong Liu, M ˚arten Bj ¨orkman, et al. Diffusion-based time series data imputation for cloud failure prediction at microsoft 365. InProceedings of the 31st ACM Joint European Software Engineeri...
[33]

Novel attack vector to abuse aws for cryptojacking

Nahfid Nissar, S Arjun, Kvk Siddartha, and Shaik Muzamil Raheman. Novel attack vector to abuse aws for cryptojacking. In2024 3rd Inter- national Conference on Applied Artificial Intelligence and Computing (ICAAIC), pages 1369–1374. IEEE, 2024

2024
[34]

A survey of attack instances of cryptojacking targeting cloud infrastructure

Keshani Jayasinghe and Guhanathan Poravi. A survey of attack instances of cryptojacking targeting cloud infrastructure. InProceedings of the 2020 2nd Asia pacific information technology conference, pages 100– 107, 2020

2020
[35]

Defense mechanisms against ddos attacks in a cloud computing environment: State-of-the-art and research challenges.IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, 21(4):3769–3795, 2019

Neha Agrawal and Shashikala Tapaswi. Defense mechanisms against ddos attacks in a cloud computing environment: State-of-the-art and research challenges.IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, 21(4):3769–3795, 2019

2019
[36]

Ddos attacks in cloud computing: Issues, taxonomy, and future directions.Computer communications, 107:30–48, 2017

Gaurav Somani, Manoj Singh Gaur, Dheeraj Sanghi, Mauro Conti, and Rajkumar Buyya. Ddos attacks in cloud computing: Issues, taxonomy, and future directions.Computer communications, 107:30–48, 2017

2017
[37]

A note on the validity of cross-validation for evaluating autoregressive time series prediction.Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 120:70–83, 2018

Christoph Bergmeir, Rob J Hyndman, and Bonsoo Koo. A note on the validity of cross-validation for evaluating autoregressive time series prediction.Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 120:70–83, 2018

2018
[38]

Towards measuring predictability: To which extent data-driven approaches can extract deterministic relations from data exemplified with time series prediction and classification

Saleh GHOLAM ZADEH, Vaisakh Shaj, Patrick Jahnke, Gerhard Neu- mann, and Tim Breitenbach. Towards measuring predictability: To which extent data-driven approaches can extract deterministic relations from data exemplified with time series prediction and classification. Transact...

2025
[39]

A simple and effective predictive resource scaling heuristic for large-scale cloud applications

Quentin Rebjock, Valentin Flunkert, Tim Januschowski, Laurent Callot, and Joel Castellon. A simple and effective predictive resource scaling heuristic for large-scale cloud applications. InAIDB@ VLDB, 2020

2020
[40]

Temporal conformal prediction (tcp): A distribution-free statistical and machine learning framework for adaptive risk forecasting.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.05470, 2025

Agnideep Aich, Ashit Baran Aich, and Dipak C Jain. Temporal conformal prediction (tcp): A distribution-free statistical and machine learning framework for adaptive risk forecasting.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.05470, 2025

2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Resource central: Understanding and predicting workloads for improved resource management in large cloud platforms

Eli Cortez, Anand Bonde, Alexandre Muzio, Mark Russinovich, Marcus Fontoura, and Ricardo Bianchini. Resource central: Understanding and predicting workloads for improved resource management in large cloud platforms. InProceedings of the 26th Symposium on Operating Systems Principles, pages 153–167, 2017

2017

[2] [2]

A review on machine learning methods for workload prediction in cloud computing

Mohammad Yekta and Hadi Shahriar Shahhoseini. A review on machine learning methods for workload prediction in cloud computing. In2023 13th International Conference on Computer and Knowledge Engineering (ICCKE), pages 306–311. IEEE, 2023

2023

[3] [3]

Resource utilization prediction model for cloud datacentre: Survey.International Journal of Advanced Computer Science & Applications, 16(3), 2025

Doaa Bliedy, Mohamed H Khafagy, and Rasha M Badry. Resource utilization prediction model for cloud datacentre: Survey.International Journal of Advanced Computer Science & Applications, 16(3), 2025

2025

[4] [4]

Application-oriented cloud workload prediction: A survey and new perspectives.Tsinghua Science and Technology, 30(1):34–54, 2024

Binbin Feng and Zhijun Ding. Application-oriented cloud workload prediction: A survey and new perspectives.Tsinghua Science and Technology, 30(1):34–54, 2024

2024

[5] [5]

Interference-aware edge runtime prediction with conformal matrix completion.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.06428, 2025

Tianshu Huang, Arjun Ramesh, Emily Ruppel, Nuno Pereira, Anthony Rowe, and Carlee Joe-Wong. Interference-aware edge runtime prediction with conformal matrix completion.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.06428, 2025

arXiv 2025

[6] [6]

Forecasting workload in cloud computing: towards uncertainty-aware predictions and transfer learning.Cluster Computing, 28(4):258, 2025

Andrea Rossi, Andrea Visentin, Diego Carraro, Steven Prestwich, and Kenneth N Brown. Forecasting workload in cloud computing: towards uncertainty-aware predictions and transfer learning.Cluster Computing, 28(4):258, 2025

2025

[7] [7]

Multivariate resource usage forecasting and temporal accuracy in private cloud systems, 2025

Nils Persson Suorra. Multivariate resource usage forecasting and temporal accuracy in private cloud systems, 2025

2025

[8] [8]

OTexts, 2018

Rob J Hyndman and George Athanasopoulos.Forecasting: principles and practice. OTexts, 2018

2018