Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 28 references

Computation-power Coupled Modeling for IDCs and Collaborative Optimization in ADNs

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that modeling the two-step VM-to-server scheduling of online workload makes data-center fleets accurately dispatchable flexible loads for distribution grids, with Nash bargaining settling the DSO–ISC trade-off.

desk verdict Useful VM-level workload model for IDC–ADN coordination, but the reconstruction's exactness claim does not survive nonzero startup/shutdown costs. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.17051 v1 pith:VCFK4FYH submitted 2024-11-26 eess.SY cs.SY

Chuyi Li , Kedi Zheng , Hongye Guo , Chongqing Kang , Qixin Chen This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SYcs.SY
keywords Internetdatacentersworkloadschedulingbargaininggameactivedistributionnetworksvirtualmachinedeploymentdemandresponseoptimalpowerflow
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 make the online workload of a multi-site Internet service company (ISC) a dispatchable resource for the active distribution network. Its central claim is that a data center's flexibility comes from two coupled decisions—how virtual machines are packed onto servers and how each client's request flow is routed to those VMs—and that models ignoring this two-step structure overestimate flexibility. The paper builds a day-ahead computation-power coupling model with AC optimal power flow, reconstructs the model so it stays solvable for hundreds of servers, and uses the Nash bargaining solution to settle the conflict between the distribution system operator's supply-cost objective and the ISC's CPU-utilization objective without an arbitrary weighting coefficient. If the claim holds, grid operators can dispatch data-center load in a way that respects real workload heterogeneity while cutting supply costs and data-center energy use.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is the two-step workload scheduling chain: VM deployment determines the discrete on/off state and capacity of each server, while request-flow assignment determines the continuous CPU utilization; together these set IT power, and a proportional cooling-load factor turns them into the IDC's total load at a grid node. The paper's reconstruction then replaces per-server integer variables with segment-level batch variables $\bar{S}_{n,c,t}$ over a small set of pre-enumerated, pruned VM deployment schemes, which is what makes the model solvable. The solution machinery is a nested Benders decomposition (master MILP for ISC scheduling, subproblem SOCP for the distribution network) with column generation over deployment schemes, and the multi-objective machinery is the Nash bargaining product $(z_{2,\max}-z_2)(z_{4,\max}-z_4)$ whose maximization selects an axiomatic, Pareto-efficient compromise.

What would settle it

Compute the exact mixed-integer optimum of the original per-server model (9) on a 500-server instance whose workload mixes include many distinct VM CPU-core requirements and availability limits, and compare it with the reconstructed model (13): if the objective gap exceeds numerical tolerance, or if the exact optimal schedule uses a deployment scheme that the efficiency rule would prune, the reconstruction's exactness claim is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that fully accounting for the heterogeneity of online workload—each client's VM specification, availability limit, request flow, and redundancy margin—yields an accurate description of ISC flexibility, and that this description can be embedded in distribution-network optimal power flow. The paper constructs a coupling chain: VM deployment (Equation (4)) fixes which servers are on and how many VMs they carry; request-flow assignment (Equation (5)) fixes CPU utilization; server power and a linear cooling factor (Equations (2) and (1d)) convert those states into an IDC's active and reactive load, which enters the branch-flow power equations (6)–(7). Because the resulting mixed-integer second-order cone program is too large for hundreds of servers, the paper reconstructs the model by grouping identical servers into segments and enumerating only efficient VM-deployment schemes, then solves it with a Benders/column-generation algorithm; the reconstructed objective differs from the original by $1.97\times 10^{-6}$ on the 10-server test case. Finally, treating the DSO and ISC as bargaining players with objectives $z_2$ (supply cost) and $z_4$ (active CPU cores), the Nash bargaining solution of (21) selects a Pareto-efficient point without choosing a weighting coefficient. In the 10-server case this point keeps CPU utilization at 79.07%, cuts IDC energy use by 2.63% relative to the ISC-only optimum, and lowers DSO cost by 0.012%.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that servers inside a segment are identical and that only a few VM deployment schemes are efficient, so pruning to those schemes never cuts off the true optimum—verified only empirically on a 10-server case, not by proof.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A distribution system operator can treat a fleet of geographically distributed IDCs as a controllable load in day-ahead dispatch, with the dispatched server states and workload routes respecting VM-level constraints rather than overestimating flexibility.
  • The reconstruction plus algorithm makes the model applicable at 500-server scale: only 28–30 deployment schemes per IDC were needed out of 364 feasible schemes, cutting the variable scale by more than an order of magnitude.
  • The Nash bargaining solution provides a Pareto-efficient operating point independent of subjective weighting, so the DSO–ISC compromise can be justified by symmetry and invariance rather than by a chosen coefficient.
  • Even small efficiency sacrifices by the ISC can produce system benefits: in the 10-server case, allowing CPU utilization to fall from 84.13% to 79.07% reduced IDC energy consumption by 2.63% and DSO cost by 0.012%.
  • The same computation-power coupling model can be reused for other day-ahead distribution-network scenarios where IDC load must be shifted geographically without violating workload QoS requirements.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The authors do not prove that the efficiency-pruning step never excludes the true optimum; a formal optimality certificate is missing, and a randomized comparison of Model (9) and Model (13) on workload traces with many distinct VM shapes and request flows would reveal how often the reconstructed model's small scheme set actually contains the true optimum.
  • The model assumes the private network between IDCs imposes no bandwidth or latency constraint; adding WAN capacity limits would shrink the feasible spatial-shifting region, so latency-aware dispatch with the same coupling chain is a direct extension.
  • The Nash bargaining solution requires a known disagreement point and feasible payoff set; in practice the DSO and ISC would need to share workload forecasts and cost functions, which points toward an incentive-compatible reporting mechanism as a follow-up.
  • The same coupling chain could serve other grid services—reserve provision, congestion relief, or PV curtailment reduction—with the Nash bargaining product as a pricing or compensation rule.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper models an Internet service company (ISC) operating geographically distributed data centers as a flexible load in an active distribution network. It develops a two-step workload scheduling model (VM deployment followed by request allocation), embeds it in a day-ahead distribution-network optimal power flow problem, and proposes a segment-based model reconstruction to reduce the integer-variable scale. A Benders/column-generation algorithm is then designed, and a Nash bargaining framework is used to select a Pareto-efficient operating point between the DSO cost and the ISC CPU-utilization objectives. The claims are supported by a 10-server, 2-workload validation case and a 500-server, 6-workload scalability case on a 33-bus system, with a reported objective gap of 1.97e-6 between the original and reconstructed models.

Significance. If the claims hold, the paper makes a useful contribution to IDC demand-response modeling: it treats online workload heterogeneity through VM-specification and availability constraints, provides a concrete reconstruction that reduces model scale, and proposes a principled way to balance DSO and ISC objectives. The small-case reconstruction gap of 1.97e-6 is a genuine point in favor of the reconstruction, and the Nash bargaining formulation is a sensible alternative to ad hoc weighting. However, the central exactness claim is conditional: the reconstruction is only validated for zero startup/shutdown costs, and the homogeneity/pruning step lacks a formal optimality guarantee. The significance of the final result depends on whether these limitations can be removed or explicitly scoped.

major comments (3)
  1. [§IV-A, Eq. (10d)] The reconstruction is not equivalent to Model (9) when startup/shutdown costs are nonzero. In the original model, Eq. (2d) couples startup/shutdown indicators only to the server state S_{n,s,t}, while Eq. (4) permits R^l_{n,s,t} to change while S=1; thus a server can switch VM deployment schemes in place with no transition cost. In the reconstructed model, each segment c is tied to one deployment scheme, and Eq. (10d) imposes per-segment balance Mbar^SU_{n,c,t} - Mbar^SD_{n,c,t} = Sbar_{n,c,t} - Sbar_{n,c,t-1}; a shift of a server from scheme c to scheme d therefore creates a shutdown count in c and a startup count in d, incurring P^SD + P^SU even though the physical server remained on. The numerical validation in §VI-B sets P^SU = P^SD = 0 (Table I), so it does not exercise this discrepancy. A one-server, two-workload example with nonzero transition costs separates the two models immediately. This affects the claim in Contribution 1 that the reconstructed model (13) faithfully reconstructs the flexibility of the initial model. Please either introduce explicit reconfiguration variables that allow in-place scheme changes without transition cost, or state and justify the zero-startup-cost domain as the scope of the reconstruction.
  2. [§IV-A, §VI-B2] The homogeneity/pruning step is not proven to preserve optimality. Section IV-A asserts that only a small number of VM deployment schemes are efficient and prunes 'obviously inefficient' schemes, but no formal argument shows that the pruned scheme set always contains an optimal solution of Model (9). The exactness claim rests on a single 10-server instance in §VI-B2, where the reported gap is 1.97e-6 and the transition-cost terms are zero. If a real workload mix leads to a deployment pattern not among the enumerated efficient schemes, Model (13) can exclude the true optimum. Please provide a proof or a precise characterization of the schemes that can be discarded, and report how the objective gap changes with the pruning threshold or with workload heterogeneity.
  3. [§V, Algorithm 1] The Pareto-front estimation used in the Nash bargaining solution is not well-defined. Section V says one should modify a weighting coefficient and repeat Algorithm 1, but Algorithm 1 as stated solves the single-objective master problems (14) and (16) with objective g(y)+q and no weighting parameter. The 'intermediate points' generated during the Benders iterations are not shown to be Pareto-efficient for the pair (z2, z4), so their convex hull is not established as a valid representation of the Pareto front. Without a precise scalarization procedure or a proof that the computed hull is an inner/outer approximation of P, the solution of (21) may be computed with respect to a set containing non-Pareto or infeasible points, and the claim that the Nash bargaining solution avoids subjective weighting is not fully supported. Please specify the scalarized problem solved for each weight and verify the validity of the resulting front approximation.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§VI-B2, Table IV] The text says the reconstructed model generates 5, 2, and 6 schemes for IDC1, IDC2, and IDC3, but Table IV lists 6 schemes for IDC1; please correct the count or the table.
  2. [§IV-B, Algorithm 1] The claim that the nested column-generation/Benders procedure 'tends to converge rapidly' is not supported by a formal convergence argument; please state the convergence condition and, if possible, bound the number of Benders iterations or provide a certificate.
  3. [§V, Eq. (21)] The quantities z2,max and z4,max are described as 'maximum possible payoffs' but z2 is a cost to be minimized and z4 is a CPU-core count; clarify whether these are disagreement-point values or actual maxima, and define how they are computed.
  4. [Nomenclature and tables] There are several typographical issues, including 'Varibles' in the Nomenclature and 'Paramenters' in Tables I, II, and V; these should be corrected.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the workload-to-power model is constructed from physical equations, the reconstruction is checked against its own parent model (internal consistency, not prediction), and the Nash solution is a standard selection rule with no fitted parameter presented as an output.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained in the sense of not reducing to its inputs. Eqs. (1)-(5) define a physical mapping from VM deployment and workload allocation to IDC power; Eq. (9) is the resulting optimization. The reconstruction in Section IV-A (Eqs. (10)-(12)) aggregates identical servers into segments and is not fitted to the reported headline numbers; its 'exactness' is checked numerically against the initial model on the same 10-server case (Section VI-B, objective gap 1.97e-6 with P_SU=P_SD=0), which is an internal-consistency check rather than an external benchmark, but it is not a parameter fitted to a prediction target. The Nash bargaining solution (Eq. (21)) is a standard selection rule applied after estimating the Pareto front; the individually optimized payoffs z2,max and z4,max serve as disagreement points, not as the predicted outcome. Cited component models (cooling load [6], server power [11], SOCP relaxation [24], Benders decomposition [25]) are external to the authors and not load-bearing self-citations. A correctness caveat exists: with nonzero startup/shutdown costs, Eq. (10d) may over-count reconfiguration costs relative to Eq. (2d), because the original permits VM reconfiguration while S=1; however, this is a modeling-accuracy limitation, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central model rests on standard power-flow and server-energy approximations plus a homogeneity assumption for the model reconstruction. The case-study parameters are hand-set rather than measured, and the Benders implementation assumes subproblem feasibility. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • K_IT_n,s (server dynamic power slope) = 1150/1000/1150 (W per unit CPU utilization)
    Chosen by hand in Table I; the paper notes such slopes are normally fit from historical data, but no fitting procedure or data is given.
  • P_base_n,s (server base power) = 50
    Set in Table I without a data source.
  • K_C_n (cooling coefficient) = 0.15
    Set in Table I; stated as a linear load factor model from [6].
  • phi_t (power factor) = 0.9
    Assumed fixed for all IDCs (Eq. 1b); no measurement basis.
  • U_bar_n (max CPU utilization) = 0.9
    Assumed per [11].
  • eta_l (VM redundancy/backup rate) = 0.9
    Set for both workloads in Table II; affects how much capacity is reserved.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math SOCP relaxation of the branch flow model is exact for the radial 33-bus network
    Eq. (6) uses the relaxation of [24]; exactness for radial networks requires standard conditions.
  • domain assumption Fixed power factor phi_t for each IDC (Eq. 1b)
    Assumes reactive compensation keeps the IDC power factor constant at 0.9; no dynamics or control detail.
  • domain assumption Linear cooling load factor model P_cooling = K_C * P_IT (Eq. 1d)
    Adopted from [6]; ignores thermal inertia and weather dependence.
  • domain assumption Linear server power model P = P_base + K*U (Eq. 2b)
    Adopted from [11]; assumes fixed frequency and voltage.
  • ad hoc to paper Homogeneity of servers and VM deployment schemes within segments (Section IV-A)
    The reconstruction of Eq. (13) depends on grouping identical servers and pruning 'inefficient' deployment schemes; exactness is not proven.
  • domain assumption Subproblem (15) is feasible for all proposed IDC power levels
    Section IV-B states 'In general cases, the subproblem is feasible', but no feasibility cuts are added to Benders.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Computation-power Coupled Modeling for IDCs and Collaborative Optimization in ADNs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VCFK4FYH

@misc{pith2026241117051,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Computation-power Coupled Modeling for IDCs and Collaborative Optimization in ADNs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VCFK4FYH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.17051}
}
read the original abstract

The batch and online workload of Internet data centers (IDCs) offer temporal and spatial scheduling flexibility. Given that power generation costs vary over time and location, harnessing the flexibility of IDCs' energy consumption through workload regulation can optimize the power flow within the system. This paper focuses on multi-geographically distributed IDCs managed by an Internet service company (ISC), which are aggregated as a controllable load. The load flexibility resulting from spatial load regulation of online workload is taken into account. A two-step workload scheduling mechanism is adopted, and a computation-power coupling model of ISC is established to facilitate collaborative optimization in active distribution networks (ADNs). To address the model-solving problem based on the assumption of scheduling homogeneity, a model reconstruction method is proposed. An efficient iterative algorithm is designed to solve the reconstructed model. Furthermore, the Nash bargaining solution is employed to coordinate the different optimization objectives of ISC and power system operators, thereby avoiding subjective arbitrariness. Experimental cases based on a 33-node distribution system are designed to verify the effectiveness of the model and algorithm in optimizing ISC's energy consumption and power flow within the system.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.17051 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Online workload scheduling mechanism of ISCs. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Computation-power coupling relationship of IDC and workload. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. 33-bus radial distribution system. 00:00 04:00 08:00 12:00 16:00 20:00 0.85 0.9 0.95 1 1.05 1.1 1.15 Load factor /p.u. 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 PV profile /p.u [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The load factor curve and PV profile. TABLE I ISC-RELATED PARAMENTERS 10-server 2-workload 500-server 6-workload NIT n [10,10,10] [500,500,500] KC n [0.15,0.15,0.15] [0.15,0.15,0.15] P SU n,s/P SD n,s [0,0,0] [0,0,0] P base n,s [50,50,50] [50,50,50] KIT n,s [1150,1000,…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Power consumption of each IDC in Case 1 and Case 2. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: CPU utilization of each time interval in Case 1. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: VM deployment of each time interval in Case 1. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Workload distribution of each time interval in Case 2. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Pareto front and Nash bargaining solution. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_12.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Workload distribution of Nash bargaining solution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_11.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Power consumption of each IDC in 500-server test case. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Workload distribution in 500-server test case. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_14.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Data centres and data transmission networks,

    G. Kamiya, “Data centres and data transmission networks,” IEA: Inter- national Energy Agency, Tech. Rep., 2020. [Online]. Available: https: //www.iea.org/reports/data-centres-and-data-transmission-networks

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    Internet data center load modeling for demand response considering the coupling of multiple regulation methods,

    M. Chen, C. Gao, M. Shahidehpour, Z. Li, S. Chen, and D. Li, “Internet data center load modeling for demand response considering the coupling of multiple regulation methods,” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid , vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 2060–2076, 2020

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    A scalable, commodity data center network architecture,

    M. Al-Fares, A. Loukissas, and A. Vahdat, “A scalable, commodity data center network architecture,” ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communica- tion Review, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 63–74, 2008

    work page 2008

  4. [4]

    Resource efficient computing for warehouse-scale data- centers,

    C. Kozyrakis, “Resource efficient computing for warehouse-scale data- centers,” in 2013 Design, Automation & Test in Europe Conference & Exhibition (DATE). IEEE, 2013, pp. 1351–1356

    work page 2013

  5. [5]

    Policies for dynamic clock scheduling,

    D. Grunwald, P. Levis, K. I. Farkas, C. B. Morrey III, and M. Neufeld, “Policies for dynamic clock scheduling,” in Fourth Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation (OSDI 2000) , 2000

    work page 2000

  6. [6]

    Towards optimal electric demand management for internet data centers,

    J. Li, Z. Li, K. Ren, and X. Liu, “Towards optimal electric demand management for internet data centers,” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 183–192, 2011

    work page 2011

  7. [7]

    Virtualpower: coordinated power manage- ment in virtualized enterprise systems,

    R. Nathuji and K. Schwan, “Virtualpower: coordinated power manage- ment in virtualized enterprise systems,” ACM SIGOPS operating systems review, vol. 41, no. 6, pp. 265–278, 2007

    work page 2007

  8. [8]

    How geo-distributed data centers do demand response: A game- theoretic approach,

    N. H. Tran, D. H. Tran, S. Ren, Z. Han, E.-N. Huh, and C. S. Hong, “How geo-distributed data centers do demand response: A game- theoretic approach,” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid , vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 937–947, 2015

    work page 2015

Show all 28 references
  1. [9]

    Toward optimal operation of internet data center microgrid,

    J. Li and W. Qi, “Toward optimal operation of internet data center microgrid,” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid , vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 971– 979, 2016. IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SMART GRID, VOL. 15, NO. 3, MAY 2024 14

    2016

  2. [10]

    Electric demand response management for distributed large-scale internet data centers,

    Z. Chen, L. Wu, and Z. Li, “Electric demand response management for distributed large-scale internet data centers,” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 651–661, 2013

    2013

  3. [11]

    Modeling demand response capability by inter- net data centers processing batch computing jobs,

    J. Li, Z. Bao, and Z. Li, “Modeling demand response capability by inter- net data centers processing batch computing jobs,” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid , vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 737–747, 2014

    2014

  4. [12]

    Internet data centers participating in demand response: A comprehensive review,

    M. Chen, C. Gao, M. Song, S. Chen, D. Li, and Q. Liu, “Internet data centers participating in demand response: A comprehensive review,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews , vol. 117, p. 109466, 2020

    2020

  5. [13]

    Proactive demand response for data centers: A win-win solution,

    H. Wang, J. Huang, X. Lin, and H. Mohsenian-Rad, “Proactive demand response for data centers: A win-win solution,” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 1584–1596, 2015

    2015

  6. [14]

    Incentive-compatible demand response for spatially coupled internet data centers in electricity markets,

    M. Chen, C. Gao, M. Shahidehpour, and Z. Li, “Incentive-compatible demand response for spatially coupled internet data centers in electricity markets,” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid , vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 3056– 3069, 2021

    2021

  7. [15]

    A review on energy efficiency and demand response with focus on small and medium data centers,

    T. L. Vasques, P. Moura, and A. de Almeida, “A review on energy efficiency and demand response with focus on small and medium data centers,” Energy Efficiency, vol. 12, pp. 1399–1428, 2019

    2019

  8. [16]

    Designing and managing data centers for resilience: Demand response and microgrids,

    R. Shepherd, D. Sartor, R. Ghatikar, B. Myatt, M. Khattar, and R. Carr, “Designing and managing data centers for resilience: Demand response and microgrids,” U.S. Department of Energy, Tech. Rep., 2019

    2019

  9. [17]

    Bulk savings for bulk transfers: Minimizing the energy-cost for geo-distributed data centers,

    X. Lu, F. Kong, X. Liu, J. Yin, Q. Xiang, and H. Yu, “Bulk savings for bulk transfers: Minimizing the energy-cost for geo-distributed data centers,” IEEE Transactions on Cloud Computing , vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 73–85, 2017

    2017

  10. [18]

    Greening geographical load balancing,

    Z. Liu, M. Lin, A. Wierman, S. H. Low, and L. L. Andrew, “Greening geographical load balancing,” ACM SIGMETRICS Performance Evalu- ation Review, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 193–204, 2011

    2011

  11. [19]

    The elasticity and plasticity in semi-containerized co-locating cloud workload: a view from alibaba trace,

    Q. Liu and Z. Yu, “The elasticity and plasticity in semi-containerized co-locating cloud workload: a view from alibaba trace,” in Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Cloud Computing , 2018, pp. 347–360

    2018

  12. [20]

    Deepjs: Job scheduling based on deep reinforcement learning in cloud data center,

    F. Li and B. Hu, “Deepjs: Job scheduling based on deep reinforcement learning in cloud data center,” in Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Big Data and Computing , 2019, pp. 48–53

    2019

  13. [21]

    Carbon-aware computing for datacenters,

    A. Radovanovic, R. Koningstein, I. Schneider, B. Chen, A. Duarte, B. Roy, D. Xiao, M. Haridasan, P. Hung, N. Care et al., “Carbon-aware computing for datacenters,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 2022

    2022

  14. [22]

    Demand response opportunities and enabling technologies for data centers: Findings from field studies,

    G. Ghatikar, V . Ganti, N. Matson, and M. A. Piette, “Demand response opportunities and enabling technologies for data centers: Findings from field studies,” Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Tech. Rep. LBNL-5763E, 2012. [Online]. Available: https://www.osti.gov/biblio/ 1174175

    2012

  15. [23]

    Cutting the electric bill for internet-scale systems,

    A. Qureshi, R. Weber, H. Balakrishnan, J. Guttag, and B. Maggs, “Cutting the electric bill for internet-scale systems,” in Proceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM 2009 Conference on Data Communication , 2009, p. 123–134

    2009

  16. [24]

    Branch flow model: Relaxations and convexification—part i,

    M. Farivar and S. H. Low, “Branch flow model: Relaxations and convexification—part i,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems , vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 2554–2564, 2013

    2013

  17. [25]

    Generalized benders decomposition,

    A. M. Geoffrion, “Generalized benders decomposition,” Journal of optimization theory and applications , vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 237–260, 1972

    1972

  18. [26]

    Inefficiency of nash equilibria,

    Dubey and Pradeep, “Inefficiency of nash equilibria,” Cowles Founda- tion Discussion Papers, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 1–8, 1986

    1986

  19. [27]

    Network reconfiguration in distribution systems for loss reduction and load balancing,

    M. E. Baran and F. F. Wu, “Network reconfiguration in distribution systems for loss reduction and load balancing,” IEEE Power Engineering Review, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 101–102, 1989

    1989

  20. [28]

    Distributed generation planning in active distribution network considering demand side management and network reconfiguration,

    S. Zhang, H. Cheng, D. Wang, L. Zhang, F. Li, and L. Yao, “Distributed generation planning in active distribution network considering demand side management and network reconfiguration,” Applied Energy , vol. 228, pp. 1921–1936, 2018. Chuyi Li received the B.S. degree in elect...

    1921

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.