pith. sign in

arxiv: 2501.12672 · v2 · submitted 2025-01-22 · 💻 cs.DC

Workflow as a Service Broker in Cloud Environment: A Systematic Mapping Study

Saeid Abrishami , Faridreza Momtaz Zandi , Alireza Nourbakhsh This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-23 05:42 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.DC
keywords Workflow as a ServiceWaaS brokersCloud computingSystematic mapping studyTaxonomyWorkflow schedulingResource provisioning
0
0 comments X

The pith

Systematic mapping study derives an architecture-based taxonomy for Workflow as a Service brokers from 87 papers

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

Cloud workflows involve complex choices of resources, pricing models, and scheduling across serverful and serverless options, which WaaS brokers aim to simplify for users. This paper conducts a Systematic Mapping Study using a 3-tier search strategy to review the literature on these brokers. It examines 87 high-quality articles from 49 venues and organizes them into a taxonomy based on broker architecture. The study classifies the articles according to this taxonomy and identifies open challenges for future work. A reader would care because the resulting map can help researchers and developers navigate the field and avoid redundant efforts when building or extending brokers.

Core claim

The paper conducts a Systematic Mapping Study on Workflow as a Service brokers in cloud environments, employing database search followed by backward and forward snowballing to select 87 high-quality articles from 49 venues. It derives a taxonomy based on the architecture of WaaS brokers, classifies and surveys the articles according to that taxonomy, and explores future research directions for broker design and implementation.

What carries the argument

Taxonomy based on the architecture of WaaS brokers

If this is right

  • The taxonomy allows new studies to be positioned relative to existing architectural approaches.
  • Identified trends and challenges can directly inform the design of next-generation WaaS brokers.
  • Classification of the 87 articles reveals which architectural styles have received the most attention.
  • Future implementations can target the research directions outlined for broker orchestration and cost management.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The taxonomy could serve as a starting point for building a living review that incorporates papers published after 2024.
  • Architectural categories in the taxonomy may highlight opportunities for brokers that combine serverful and serverless execution within a single workflow.
  • The mapping could be extended to compare broker performance across the different pricing models discussed in the reviewed papers.

Load-bearing premise

The 3-tier search strategy captured a representative and unbiased sample of all relevant literature on WaaS brokers.

What would settle it

A substantial set of relevant papers on WaaS brokers from additional venues or time periods that the study did not include.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.12672 by Alireza Nourbakhsh, Faridreza Momtaz Zandi, Saeid Abrishami.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The architecture of a Workflow as a Service broker. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Number of included papers 3.4 Conducting the SLR and analyzing results After establishing the strategies, we proceeded with the SLR by implementing these strategies. As a result, we identified 43 venues (31 journals and 12 conferences), along with 74 studies that were included, which are detailed in the provided Excel supplementary file [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Negotiation and pricing taxonomy 4.1.1 QoS Requirements. Users have varying requirements regarding quality of service criteria (e.g., execution time, cost, privacy, reliability, etc.; see Section 4.2.5). These requirements can be classified into two categories. The first category is Multi-criteria, where the user seeks to optimize multiple criteria simultaneously. In this case, the broker faces a multi-cri… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Number of articles on QoS Requirements and Workflow Arrival. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Task scheduler taxonomy. , Vol. 1, No. 1, Article . Publication date: January 2025 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Number of articles for different scheduling types and algorithms [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Resource provisioner taxonomy. Finally, mathematical optimization (or mathematical programming) utilizes techniques like Linear/Nonlinear Programming (LP/NLP) to address optimization problems. Karmakar et al. [38] apply NLP to minimize execution costs for a set of deadline-constrained workflows. They first identify the critical paths within the workflow and then aim to minimize the total required MIPS for … view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Number of articles for different resource types and pricing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Monitoring and fault tolerance taxonomy. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_9.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Cloud computing has emerged as a promising platform for running scientific workflows across various domains. Scientists can take advantage of different cloud service models, such as serverful or serverless, to execute workflows based on their specific requirements, along with diverse pricing models like on-demand, reserved, or spot instances to reduce execution costs. However, the challenge of selecting appropriate resources and pricing models, coupled with the orchestration and scheduling of workflow tasks, creates significant complexity for users. To mitigate this burden, Workflow as a Service (WaaS) brokers have been introduced to facilitate workflow execution. In recent years, numerous studies have been published, either directly or indirectly related to this research area, highlighting the need for a comprehensive and systematic review of WaaS brokers to identify key trends and challenges in this field. In this paper, we conduct a Systematic Mapping Study (SMS) on WaaS brokers within cloud environments. The SMS employs a thorough 3-tier strategy (database search, backward snowballing, and forward snowballing) to answer five research questions. A total of 87 high-quality articles, published in 49 prestigious venues, are analyzed to derive a taxonomy based on the architecture of WaaS brokers. The articles are classified and surveyed according to this taxonomy, and future research directions for the design and implementation of WaaS brokers are explored. This study provides valuable insights for researchers and developers, helping them identify major trends and issues in the field of WaaS brokers.

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

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper presents a Systematic Mapping Study (SMS) of Workflow as a Service (WaaS) brokers in cloud environments. Using a 3-tier search strategy (database search, backward snowballing, forward snowballing), the authors identify and analyze 87 high-quality articles from 49 venues. They derive a taxonomy of WaaS broker architectures, classify the selected papers according to this taxonomy, and identify future research directions for broker design and implementation.

Significance. If the search protocol and quality assessment are shown to be complete and unbiased, the resulting taxonomy and trend analysis would provide a useful structured overview of an emerging subfield, helping researchers locate relevant work and spot gaps in WaaS broker research.

major comments (3)
  1. [Methodology] Methodology section: the description of the 3-tier search must include the exact database search strings, the list of queried databases/venues, the time bounds, and the precise inclusion/exclusion criteria applied after retrieval. Without these details the claim that the 87-article set is representative cannot be evaluated.
  2. [Taxonomy and Classification] Taxonomy construction: the paper must explain the iterative process by which the architecture-based taxonomy was derived from the 87 papers (e.g., how categories were identified, merged, or validated). The current high-level statement that the taxonomy is “based on the architecture of WaaS brokers” leaves the mapping from raw data to taxonomy opaque.
  3. [Study Selection and Quality Assessment] Quality assessment: the quality criteria used to filter the initial retrieval down to the final 87 “high-quality” articles must be stated explicitly, together with the number of papers excluded at each stage. This is load-bearing for the central claim that the surveyed literature is both comprehensive and reliable.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract / Introduction] Abstract and introduction: the five research questions are mentioned but never listed; they should appear explicitly early in the paper.
  2. [Results] Tables and figures: ensure that every table reporting classification results includes the total number of papers per category and that figure captions are self-contained.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed feedback. The comments correctly identify areas where greater methodological transparency is required. We will revise the manuscript to address each point.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Methodology] Methodology section: the description of the 3-tier search must include the exact database search strings, the list of queried databases/venues, the time bounds, and the precise inclusion/exclusion criteria applied after retrieval. Without these details the claim that the 87-article set is representative cannot be evaluated.

    Authors: We agree that these specifics are necessary for evaluating representativeness and enabling replication. The revised manuscript will expand the Methodology section to report the exact search strings, the complete list of databases and venues, the time bounds, and the full inclusion/exclusion criteria together with paper counts at each filtering step. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Taxonomy and Classification] Taxonomy construction: the paper must explain the iterative process by which the architecture-based taxonomy was derived from the 87 papers (e.g., how categories were identified, merged, or validated). The current high-level statement that the taxonomy is “based on the architecture of WaaS brokers” leaves the mapping from raw data to taxonomy opaque.

    Authors: We accept that the current description of taxonomy construction is insufficiently detailed. In the revision we will add an explicit account of the iterative process, describing how initial categories were extracted from the 87 papers, how overlapping or similar categories were merged, and the steps taken to validate the final taxonomy against the source material. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Study Selection and Quality Assessment] Quality assessment: the quality criteria used to filter the initial retrieval down to the final 87 “high-quality” articles must be stated explicitly, together with the number of papers excluded at each stage. This is load-bearing for the central claim that the surveyed literature is both comprehensive and reliable.

    Authors: We agree that explicit quality criteria and stage-by-stage exclusion counts are required. The revised version will state the quality criteria in full and include a table or PRISMA-style flow diagram reporting the number of papers retained or excluded after each selection and quality-assessment step leading to the final set of 87 articles. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: literature review with external sources only

full rationale

This is a systematic mapping study (SMS) that reviews 87 external papers. It contains no mathematical derivations, equations, fitted parameters, predictions, or ansatzes. The taxonomy and trends are classifications drawn from the cited literature, not self-generated by construction. The 3-tier search protocol is a methodological description, not a load-bearing derivation that reduces to its own inputs. No self-citation chains or uniqueness theorems are invoked. The central claims rest on external evidence, satisfying the self-contained criterion for score 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

This paper is a systematic literature review and introduces no new parameters, axioms, or entities; it synthesizes existing published work on WaaS brokers.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5808 in / 987 out tokens · 45732 ms · 2026-05-23T05:42:58.161034+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

115 extracted references · 115 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Mohamed Abdel-Basset, Laila Abdel-Fatah, and Arun Kumar Sangaiah. 2018. Chapter 10 - Metaheuristic Algorithms: A Comprehensive Review. In Computational Intelligence for Multimedia Big Data on the Cloud with Engineering Applications , Arun Kumar Sangaiah, Michael Sheng, and Zhiyong Zhang (Eds.). Academic Press, 185–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-81...

    work page doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-813314-9.00010-4 2018

  2. [2]

    Mainak Adhikari, Tarachand Amgoth, and Satish Narayana Srirama. 2019. A Survey on Scheduling Strategies for Workflows in Cloud Environment and Emerging Trends. ACM Comput. Surv. 52, 4, Article 68 (aug 2019), 36 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3325097

    work page doi:10.1145/3325097 2019

  3. [3]

    Mainak Adhikari and Santanu Koley. 2018. Cloud Computing: A Multi-workflow Scheduling Algorithm with Dynamic Reusability. Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering 43, 2 (2018), 645–660. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13369-017-2739-0

    work page doi:10.1007/s13369-017-2739-0 2018

  4. [4]

    Faisal Ahmad, Mohammad Shahid, Mahfooz Alam, Zubair Ashraf, Mohammad Sajid, Ketan Kotecha, and Gaurav Dhiman. 2022. Levelized Multiple Workflow Allocation Strategy Under Precedence Constraints With Task Merging in IaaS Cloud Environment. IEEE Access 10 (2022), 92809–92827. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3202651

    work page doi:10.1109/access.2022.3202651 2022

  5. [5]

    Mahfooz Alam, Mohammad Shahid, and Suhel Mustajab. 2024. Security prioritized multiple workflow allocation model under precedence constraints in cloud computing environment. Cluster Computing 27, 1 (2024), 341–376. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10586-022-03819-5

    work page doi:10.1007/s10586-022-03819-5 2024

  6. [6]

    Hamid Arabnejad and Jorge G. Barbosa. 2017. Maximizing the completion rate of concurrent scientific applications under time and budget constraints. Journal of Computational Science 23 (2017), 120–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocs.2016.10.013

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jocs.2016.10.013 2017

  7. [7]

    Hamid Arabnejad and Jorge G. Barbosa. 2017. Multi-QoS constrained and Profit-aware scheduling approach for concurrent workflows on heterogeneous systems. Future Generation Computer Systems 68 (2017), 211–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2016.10.003

    work page doi:10.1016/j.future.2016.10.003 2017

  8. [8]

    Vahid Arabnejad, Kris Bubendorfer, and Bryan Ng. 2019. Dynamic multi-workflow scheduling: A deadline and cost-aware approach for commercial clouds. Future Generation Computer Systems 100 (2019), 98–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2019.04.029

    work page doi:10.1016/j.future.2019.04.029 2019

  9. [9]

    Bartosz Balis, Michal Orzechowski, Krystian Pawlik, Maciej Pawlik, and Maciej Malawski. 2020. Cloud Infrastructure Automation for Scientific Workflows. In Parallel Processing and Applied Mathematics , Roman Wyrzykowski, Ewa Deelman, Jack Dongarra, and Konrad Karczewski (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, 287–297

    work page 2020

  10. [10]

    Rohan Basu Roy and Devesh Tiwari. 2024. StarShip: Mitigating I/O Bottlenecks in Serverless Computing for Scientific Workflows. Proc. ACM Meas. Anal. Comput. Syst. 8, 1, Article 2 (Feb. 2024), 29 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3639028

    work page doi:10.1145/3639028 2024

  11. [11]

    Brazier, Kassidy P

    Dominic Battré, Frances M.T. Brazier, Kassidy P. Clark, Michael Oey, Alexander Papaspyrou, Oliver Wäldrich, Philipp Wieder, and Wolfgang Ziegler. 2010. A proposal for WS-Agreement Negotiation. In2010 11th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Grid Computing . 233–241. https://doi.org/10.1109/GRID.2010.5697976

    work page doi:10.1109/grid.2010.5697976 2010

  12. [12]

    Maechling, Fabio Silva, Mei-Hui Su, Kevin R

    Scott Callaghan, Philip J. Maechling, Fabio Silva, Mei-Hui Su, Kevin R. Milner, Robert W. Graves, Kim B. Olsen, Yifeng Cui, Karan Vahi, Albert Kottke, Ewa Deelman, Christine A. Goulet, Thomas H. Jordan, and Yehuda Ben-Zion. 2024. Using Open-Science Workflow Tools to Produce SCEC CyberShake Physics-Based Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Models. Front. High Per...

    work page doi:10.3389/fhpcp.2024.1360720 2024

  13. [13]

    Benjamin Carver, Jingyuan Zhang, Ao Wang, Ali Anwar, Panruo Wu, and Yue Cheng. 2020. Wukong: a scalable and locality-enhanced framework for serverless parallel computing. In Proceedings of the 11th ACM Symposium on Cloud Computing (SoCC ’20) . Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1145/3419111.3421286

    work page doi:10.1145/3419111.3421286 2020

  14. [14]

    Shyamala

    Koneti Kalyan Chakravarthi and L. Shyamala. 2021. TOPSIS inspired Budget and Deadline Aware Multi-Workflow Scheduling for Cloud computing. Journal of Systems Architecture 114 (2021), 101916. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sysarc.2020.101916

    work page doi:10.1016/j.sysarc.2020.101916 2021

  15. [15]

    Masset, R

    K. Kalyan Chakravarthi, L. Shyamala, and V. Vaidehi. 2022. TOPSIS inspired cost-efficient concurrent workflow scheduling algorithm in cloud. Journal of King Saud University - Computer and Information Sciences 34, 6, Part A (2022), 2359–2369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jksuci.2020.02.006

    work page doi:10.1016/j 2022

  16. [16]

    Hao Chen, Yucong Dong, Xin Wen, and Zichen Xu. 2024. SwitchFlow: Optimizing HPC Workflow Performance with Heterogeneous Serverless Frameworks . In 2024 IEEE 30th International Conference on Parallel and Distributed Systems (ICPADS) . IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, CA, USA, 286–293. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICPADS63350.2024.00045

    work page doi:10.1109/icpads63350.2024.00045 2024

  17. [17]

    Huangke Chen, Jianghan Zhu, Guohua Wu, and Lisu Huo. 2018. Cost-efficient reactive scheduling for real-time workflows in clouds. The Journal of Supercomputing 74, 11 (2018), 6291–6309. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11227-018-2561-9

    work page doi:10.1007/s11227-018-2561-9 2018

  18. [18]

    Huangke Chen, Jianghan Zhu, Zhenshi Zhang, Manhao Ma, and Xin Shen. 2017. Real-time workflows oriented online scheduling in uncertain cloud environment. The Journal of Supercomputing 73, 11 (2017), 4906–4922. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11227-017-2060-4

    work page doi:10.1007/s11227-017-2060-4 2017

  19. [19]

    Huangke Chen, Xiaomin Zhu, Guipeng Liu, and Witold Pedrycz. 2021. Uncertainty-Aware Online Scheduling for Real-Time Workflows in Cloud Service Environment. IEEE Transactions on Services Computing 14, 4 (2021), 1167–1178. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSC.2018.2866421

    work page doi:10.1109/tsc.2018.2866421 2021

  20. [20]

    Huangke Chen, Xiaomin Zhu, Dishan Qiu, and Ling Liu. 2016. Uncertainty-Aware Real-Time Workflow Scheduling in the Cloud. In 2016 IEEE 9th International Conference on Cloud Computing (CLOUD) . 577–584. https://doi.org/10.1109/CLOUD.2016.0082

    work page doi:10.1109/cloud.2016.0082 2016

  21. [21]

    Long Chen, Xiaoping Li, and Rubén Ruiz. 2020. Resource Renting for Periodical Cloud Workflow Applications. IEEE Transactions on Services Computing 13, 1 (2020), 130–143. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSC.2017.2677450

    work page doi:10.1109/tsc.2017.2677450 2020

  22. [22]

    Long Chen, Guangrui Liu, Jinquan Zhang, and Xiaodon Zhang. 2024. Scheduling ensemble workflows on hybrid resources in IaaS clouds. Computing 107, 1 (2024), 22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00607-024-01386-8

    work page doi:10.1007/s00607-024-01386-8 2024

  23. [23]

    Zheyi Chen, Kai Lin, Bing Lin, Xing Chen, Xianghan Zheng, and Chunming Rong. 2020. Adaptive Resource Allocation and Consolidation for Scientific Workflow Scheduling in Multi-Cloud Environments. IEEE Access 8 (2020), 190173–190183. https://doi.org/10.1109/ ACCESS.2020.3032545

    work page arXiv 2020

  24. [24]

    Computing Research and Education Association of Australasia

    CORE Inc. Computing Research and Education Association of Australasia. [n. d.]. International CORE Conference Ranking. https: //www.core.edu.au/icore-portal. Accessed: 2025-1-9

    work page 2025

  25. [25]

    Eizaguirre, Daniel Barcelona-Pons, Aitor Arjona, Gil Vernik, Pedro García-López, and Theodore Alexandrov

    Germán T. Eizaguirre, Daniel Barcelona-Pons, Aitor Arjona, Gil Vernik, Pedro García-López, and Theodore Alexandrov. 2024. Serverful Functions: Leveraging Servers in Complex Serverless Workflows (industry track). In Proceedings of the 25th International Middleware Conference Industrial Track (Middleware Industrial Track ’24) . Association for Computing Mac...

    work page doi:10.1145/3700824.3701095 2024

  26. [26]

    Kirita-Rose Escott, Hui Ma, and Gang Chen. 2022. Transfer Learning Assisted GPHH for Dynamic Multi-Workflow Scheduling in Cloud Computing. In AI 2021: Advances in Artificial Intelligence , Guodong Long, Xinghuo Yu, and Sen Wang (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, 440–451

    work page 2022

  27. [27]

    Sergio Esteves and Luis Veiga. 2015. WaaS: Workflow-as-a-Service for the Cloud with Scheduling of Continuous and Data-Intensive Workflows. Comput. J. 59, 3 (01 2015), 371–383. https://doi.org/10.1093/comjnl/bxu158

    work page doi:10.1093/comjnl/bxu158 2015

  28. [29]

    Guisheng Fan, Xingpeng Chen, Zengpeng Li, Huiqun Yu, and Yingxue Zhang. 2023. An Energy-Efficient Dynamic Scheduling Method of Deadline-Constrained Workflows in a Cloud Environment. IEEE Transactions on Network and Service Management 20, 3 (2023), 3089–3103. https://doi.org/10.1109/TNSM.2022.3228402

    work page doi:10.1109/tnsm.2022.3228402 2023

  29. [30]

    Hilman, Maria A

    Muhammad H. Hilman, Maria A. Rodriguez, and Rajkumar Buyya. 2020. Multiple Workflows Scheduling in Multi-tenant Distributed Systems: A Taxonomy and Future Directions. ACM Comput. Surv. 53, 1, Article 10 (feb 2020), 39 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3368036

    work page doi:10.1145/3368036 2020

  30. [31]

    Victoria Huang, Chen Wang, Hui Ma, Gang Chen, and Kameron Christopher. 2022. Cost-Aware Dynamic Multi-Workflow Scheduling in Cloud Data Center Using Evolutionary Reinforcement Learning. In Service-Oriented Computing, Javier Troya, Brahim Medjahed, Mario Piattini, Lina Yao, Pablo Fernández, and Antonio Ruiz-Cortés (Eds.). Springer Nature Switzerland, 449–464

    work page 2022

  31. [32]

    He-Jhan Jiang, Kuo-Chan Huang, Hsi-Ya Chang, Di-Syuan Gu, and Po-Jen Shih. 2011. Scheduling Concurrent Workflows in HPC Cloud through Exploiting Schedule Gaps. In Algorithms and Architectures for Parallel Processing , Yang Xiang, Alfredo Cuzzocrea, Michael Hobbs, and Wanlei Zhou (Eds.). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 282–293

    work page 2011

  32. [33]

    Qingye Jiang, Young Choon Lee, and Albert Y. Zomaya. 2015. Executing Large Scale Scientific Workflow Ensembles in Public Clouds. In 2015 44th International Conference on Parallel Processing . 520–529. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICPP.2015.61

    work page doi:10.1109/icpp.2015.61 2015

  33. [34]

    Qingye Jiang, Young Choon Lee, and Albert Y. Zomaya. 2017. Serverless Execution of Scientific Workflows. In Service-Oriented Computing, Michael Maximilien, Antonio Vallecillo, Jianmin Wang, and Marc Oriol (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, 706–721. , Vol. 1, No. 1, Article . Publication date: January 2025. Workflow as a Service Broker in Cloud Env...

    work page 2017

  34. [35]

    Aji John, Kristiina Ausmees, Kathleen Muenzen, Catherine Kuhn, and Amanda Tan. 2019. SWEEP: Accelerating Scientific Research Through Scalable Serverless Workflows. In Proceedings of the 12th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Utility and Cloud Computing Companion (UCC ’19 Companion). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 43–50. https:/...

    work page doi:10.1145/3368235 2019

  35. [36]

    Anthony D Josep, Randy Katz, Andy Konwinski, Lee Gunho, David Patterson, and Ariel Rabkin. 2010. A view of cloud computing. Commun. ACM 53, 4 (2010), 50–58

    work page 2010

  36. [37]

    Gideon Juve, Ann Chervenak, Ewa Deelman, Shishir Bharathi, Gaurang Mehta, and Karan Vahi. 2013. Characterizing and profiling scientific workflows. Future Generation Computer Systems 29, 3 (2013), 682–692. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2012.08.015 Special Section: Recent Developments in High Performance Computing and Security

    work page doi:10.1016/j.future.2012.08.015 2013

  37. [38]

    Das, and Sunirmal Khatua

    Kamalesh Karmakar, Anurina Tarafdar, Rajib K. Das, and Sunirmal Khatua. 2024. Cost-efficient Workflow as a Service using Containers. Journal of Grid Computing 22, 1 (2024), 40–. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10723-024-09745-7

    work page doi:10.1007/s10723-024-09745-7 2024

  38. [39]

    Aakash Khochare, Tuhin Khare, Varad Kulkarni, and Yogesh Simmhan. 2023. XFaaS: Cross-platform Orchestration of FaaS Workflows on Hybrid Clouds. In 2023 IEEE/ACM 23rd International Symposium on Cluster, Cloud and Internet Computing (CCGrid) . 498–512. https://doi.org/10.1109/CCGrid57682.2023.00053

    work page doi:10.1109/ccgrid57682.2023.00053 2023

  39. [40]

    Neda Khorasani, Faeze Ramezani, Hoda Taheri, Neda Mohammadi, Parisa Khoshdel, Bahareh Taghavi, Saeid Abrishami, and Abbas Rasoolzadegan. 2024. Cloud Broker: A Systematic Mapping Study. IEEE Transactions on Services Computing 17, 5 (2024), 2989–3005. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSC.2024.3442541

    work page doi:10.1109/tsc.2024.3442541 2024

  40. [41]

    Barbara Kitchenham, O Pearl Brereton, David Budgen, Mark Turner, John Bailey, and Stephen Linkman. 2009. Systematic literature reviews in software engineering–a systematic literature review. Information and software technology 51, 1 (2009), 7–15

    work page 2009

  41. [42]

    Feng Li, Wen Jun Tan, Moon Gi Seok, and Wentong Cai. 2024. Clustering-based multi-objective optimization considering fairness for multi-workflow scheduling on clouds. J. Parallel and Distrib. Comput. 194 (2024), 104968. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpdc.2024.104968

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jpdc.2024.104968 2024

  42. [43]

    Feng Li, Wen Jun Tan, Moon Gi Seok, and Wentong Cai. 2024. Genetic-Based Two Granularity Ordering Methods for Multiple Workflow Scheduling. IEEE Access 12 (2024), 1747–1760. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3337832

    work page doi:10.1109/access.2023.3337832 2024

  43. [44]

    Huifang Li, Boyuan Chen, Jingwei Huang, Zhuoyue Song, and Yuanqing Xia. 2024. Clustering-assisted gradient-based optimizer for scheduling parallel cloud workflows with budget constraints. The Journal of Supercomputing 80, 12 (2024), 17097–17034. https: //doi.org/10.1007/s11227-024-06114-9

    work page doi:10.1007/s11227-024-06114-9 2024

  44. [45]

    Huifang Li, Jianghang Huang, Binyang Wang, and Yushun Fan. 2022. Weighted double deep Q-network based reinforcement learning for bi-objective multi-workflow scheduling in the cloud. Cluster Computing 25, 2 (2022), 751–768. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10586-021-03454-6

    work page 2022

  45. [46]

    Huifang Li, Luzhi Tian, Guanghao Xu, Julio Ruben Cañizares Abreu, Shuangxi Huang, Senchun Chai, and Yuanqing Xia. 2024. Co- evolutionary and Elite learning-based bi-objective Poor and Rich Optimization algorithm for scheduling multiple workflows in the cloud. Future Generation Computer Systems 152 (2024), 99–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2023.10.015

    work page doi:10.1016/j.future.2023.10.015 2024

  46. [47]

    Huifang Li, Danjing Wang, MengChu Zhou, Yushun Fan, and Yuanqing Xia. 2022. Multi-Swarm Co-Evolution Based Hybrid Intelligent Optimization for Bi-Objective Multi-Workflow Scheduling in the Cloud. IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems 33, 9 (2022), 2183–2197. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPDS.2021.3122428

    work page doi:10.1109/tpds.2021.3122428 2022

  47. [48]

    Huifang Li, Guanghao Xu, Boyuan Chen, Shuangxi Huang, Yuanqing Xia, and Senchun Chai. 2023. Dual-mutation mechanism-driven snake optimizer for scheduling multiple budget constrained workflows in the cloud. Applied Soft Computing 149 (2023), 110966. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2023.110966

    work page doi:10.1016/j.asoc.2023.110966 2023

  48. [49]

    Huifang Li, Guanghao Xu, Danjing Wang, MengChu Zhou, Yan Yuan, and Ahmed Alabdulwahab. 2022. Chaotic-Nondominated-Sorting Owl Search Algorithm for Energy-Aware Multi-Workflow Scheduling in Hybrid Clouds. IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Computing 7, 3 (2022), 595–608. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSUSC.2022.3144357

    work page doi:10.1109/tsusc.2022.3144357 2022

  49. [50]

    Xingjia Li, Li Pan, and Shijun Liu. 2022. A survey of resource provisioning problem in cloud brokers. Journal of Network and Computer Applications 203 (2022), 103384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnca.2022.103384

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jnca.2022.103384 2022

  50. [51]

    Yongkang Li, Yanying Lin, Yang Wang, Kejiang Ye, and Chengzhong Xu. 2023. Serverless Computing: State-of-the-Art, Challenges and Opportunities. IEEE Transactions on Services Computing 16, 2 (2023), 1522–1539. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSC.2022.3166553

    work page doi:10.1109/tsc.2022.3166553 2023

  51. [52]

    Liduo Lin, Li Pan, and Shijun Liu. 2022. Methods for improving the availability of spot instances: A survey. Computers in Industry 141 (2022), 103718. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2022.103718

    work page doi:10.1016/j.compind.2022.103718 2022

  52. [53]

    Liduo Lin, Li Pan, and Shijun Liu. 2024. SpotDAG: An RL-Based Algorithm for DAG Workflow Scheduling in Heterogeneous Cloud Environments. IEEE Transactions on Services Computing 17, 5 (2024), 2904–2917. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSC.2024.3422828

    work page doi:10.1109/tsc.2024.3422828 2024

  53. [54]

    Jiagang Liu, Ju Ren, Wei Dai, Deyu Zhang, Pude Zhou, Yaoxue Zhang, Geyong Min, and Noushin Najjari. 2021. Online Multi-Workflow Scheduling under Uncertain Task Execution Time in IaaS Clouds. IEEE Transactions on Cloud Computing 9, 3 (2021), 1180–1194. https://doi.org/10.1109/TCC.2019.2906300

    work page doi:10.1109/tcc.2019.2906300 2021

  54. [55]

    Yifan Liu, Jinchao Chen, Jiangong Yang, Chenglie Du, and Xiaoyan Du. 2024. Uncertainty-aware online deadline-constrained scheduling of parallel applications in distributed heterogeneous systems. Computers and Industrial Engineering 196 (2024), 110450. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2024.110450 , Vol. 1, No. 1, Article . Publication date: January 2025. 26 •...

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cie.2024.110450 2024

  55. [56]

    Xiaojin Ma, Huahu Xu, Honghao Gao, and Minjie Bian. 2021. Real-Time Multiple-Workflow Scheduling in Cloud Environments. IEEE Transactions on Network and Service Management 18, 4 (2021), 4002–4018. https://doi.org/10.1109/TNSM.2021.3125395

    work page doi:10.1109/tnsm.2021.3125395 2021

  56. [57]

    Samaneh Hajy Mahdizadeh and Saeid Abrishami. 2024. An assignment mechanism for workflow scheduling in Function as a Service edge environment. Future Generation Computer Systems 157 (2024), 543–557. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2024.04.003

    work page doi:10.1016/j.future.2024.04.003 2024

  57. [58]

    Maciej Malawski, Adam Gajek, Adam Zima, Bartosz Balis, and Kamil Figiela. 2020. Serverless execution of scientific workflows: Experiments with HyperFlow, AWS Lambda and Google Cloud Functions. Future Generation Computer Systems 110 (2020), 502–514. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2017.10.029

    work page doi:10.1016/j.future.2017.10.029 2020

  58. [59]

    Maciej Malawski, Gideon Juve, Ewa Deelman, and Jarek Nabrzyski. 2015. Algorithms for cost- and deadline-constrained provisioning for scientific workflow ensembles in IaaS clouds. Future Generation Computer Systems 48 (2015), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future. 2015.01.004 Special Section: Business and Industry Specific Cloud

    work page doi:10.1016/j.future 2015

  59. [60]

    Sahar Pilevar Moakhar and Saeid Abrishami. 2024. An efficient mechanism for function scheduling and placement in function as a service edge environment. Journal of Network and Computer Applications 226 (2024), 103890. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnca.2024.103890

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jnca.2024.103890 2024

  60. [61]

    Vazirani

    Noam Nisan, Tim Roughgarden, Eva Tardos, and Vijay V. Vazirani. 2007. Algorithmic Game Theory. Cambridge University Press, USA

    work page 2007

  61. [62]

    Claus Pahl, Antonio Brogi, Jacopo Soldani, and Pooyan Jamshidi. 2019. Cloud Container Technologies: A State-of-the-Art Review. IEEE Transactions on Cloud Computing 7, 3 (2019), 677–692. https://doi.org/10.1109/TCC.2017.2702586

    work page doi:10.1109/tcc.2017.2702586 2019

  62. [63]

    Jiahui Pan and Yi Wei. 2024. A deep reinforcement learning-based scheduling framework for real-time workflows in the cloud environment. Expert Systems with Applications 255 (2024), 124845. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2024.124845

    work page doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2024.124845 2024

  63. [64]

    Partheeban and V

    Pon. Partheeban and V. Kavitha. 2019. Versatile provisioning and workflow scheduling in WaaS under cost and deadline constraints for cloud computing. Transactions on Emerging Telecommunications Technologies 30, 1 (2019), e3527. https://doi.org/10.1002/ett.3527 arXiv:https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/ett.3527

    work page doi:10.1002/ett.3527 2019

  64. [65]

    Kai Petersen, Sairam Vakkalanka, and Ludwik Kuzniarz. 2015. Guidelines for conducting systematic mapping studies in software engineering: An update. Information and Software Technology 64 (2015), 1–18

    work page 2015

  65. [66]

    Shuo Qin and Zhongshi Shao. 2025. A collaborative multi-objective meta-heuristic for deadline-constrained multi-workflows scheduling in cloud environment. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 142 (2025), 109907. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2024. 109907

    work page doi:10.1016/j.engappai.2024 2025

  66. [67]

    Rajasekar and Yogesh Palanichamy

    P. Rajasekar and Yogesh Palanichamy. 2021. Scheduling multiple scientific workflows using containers on IaaS cloud. Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing 12, 7 (2021), 7621–7636. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12652-020-02483-0

    work page doi:10.1007/s12652-020-02483-0 2021

  67. [68]

    Rajasekar and Yogesh Palanichamy

    P. Rajasekar and Yogesh Palanichamy. 2022. A flexible deadline-driven resource provisioning and scheduling algorithm for multiple workflows with VM sharing protocol on WaaS-cloud. The Journal of Supercomputing 78, 6 (2022), 8025–8085. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11227-021-04225-1

    work page 2022

  68. [69]

    Amin Rezaeian, Mahmoud Naghibzadeh, and Dick H. J. Epema. 2019. Fair multiple-workflow scheduling with different quality-of-service goals. The Journal of Supercomputing 75, 2 (2019), 746–769. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11227-018-2604-2

    work page doi:10.1007/s11227-018-2604-2 2019

  69. [70]

    Bhaskar Prasad Rimal and Martin Maier. 2017. Workflow Scheduling in Multi-Tenant Cloud Computing Environments.IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems 28, 1 (2017), 290–304. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPDS.2016.2556668

    work page doi:10.1109/tpds.2016.2556668 2017

  70. [71]

    Sashko Ristov and Philipp Gritsch. 2022. FaaSt: Optimize makespan of serverless workflows in federated commercial FaaS. In 2022 IEEE International Conference on Cluster Computing (CLUSTER) . 183–194. https://doi.org/10.1109/CLUSTER51413.2022.00032

    work page doi:10.1109/cluster51413.2022.00032 2022

  71. [72]

    Sasko Ristov, Stefan Pedratscher, and Thomas Fahringer. 2023. xAFCL: Run Scalable Function Choreographies Across Multiple FaaS Systems. IEEE Transactions on Services Computing 16, 1 (2023), 711–723. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSC.2021.3128137

    work page doi:10.1109/tsc.2021.3128137 2023

  72. [73]

    Maria Alejandra Rodriguez and Rajkumar Buyya. 2017. A taxonomy and survey on scheduling algorithms for scientific workflows in IaaS cloud computing environments. Concurrency and Computation: Practice and Experience 29, 8 (2017), e4041. https://doi.org/10. 1002/cpe.4041 arXiv:https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/cpe.4041 e4041 cpe.4041

    work page doi:10.1002/cpe.4041 2017

  73. [74]

    Rodriguez and Rajkumar Buyya

    Maria A. Rodriguez and Rajkumar Buyya. 2018. Scheduling dynamic workloads in multi-tenant scientific workflow as a service platforms. Future Generation Computer Systems 79 (2018), 739–750. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2017.05.009

    work page doi:10.1016/j.future.2017.05.009 2018

  74. [75]

    Rohan Basu Roy, Tirthak Patel, Vijay Gadepally, and Devesh Tiwari. 2022. Mashup: making serverless computing useful for HPC workflows via hybrid execution. In Proceedings of the 27th ACM SIGPLAN Symposium on Principles and Practice of Parallel Programming (PPoPP ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 46–60. https://doi.org/10.1145/3...

    work page doi:10.1145/3503221.3508407 2022

  75. [76]

    Shubhro Roy, Mangesh Gharote, Arun Ramamurthy, Anand Pawar, and Sachin Lodha. 2024. Security-Aware Scheduling of Multiple Scientific Workflows in Cloud. In Cloud Computing and Services Science , Maarten van Steen, Donald Ferguson, and Claus Pahl (Eds.). Springer Nature Switzerland, 1–24

    work page 2024

  76. [77]

    Ehsan Saeedizade and Mehrdad Ashtiani. 2021. DDBWS: a dynamic deadline and budget-aware workflow scheduling algorithm in workflow-as-a-service environments. The Journal of Supercomputing 77, 12 (2021), 14525–14564. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11227-021-03858-6

    work page 2021

  77. [78]

    Ehsan Saeedizade and Mehrdad Ashtiani. 2024. Scientific workflow scheduling algorithms in cloud environments: a comprehensive taxonomy, survey, and future directions. Journal of Scheduling (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10951-024-00820-1 , Vol. 1, No. 1, Article . Publication date: January 2025. Workflow as a Service Broker in Cloud Environment: A Syste...

    work page doi:10.1007/s10951-024-00820-1 2024

  78. [79]

    Sampaio and Jorge G

    Altino M. Sampaio and Jorge G. Barbosa. 2020. Constructing Reliable Computing Environments on Top of Amazon EC2 Spot Instances. Algorithms 13, 8 (2020). https://doi.org/10.3390/a13080187

    work page doi:10.3390/a13080187 2020

  79. [80]

    Hossein Shafiei, Ahmad Khonsari, and Payam Mousavi. 2022. Serverless Computing: A Survey of Opportunities, Challenges, and Applications. ACM Comput. Surv. 54, 11s, Article 239 (nov 2022), 32 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3510611

    work page doi:10.1145/3510611 2022

  80. [81]

    Zomaya, and Surya Nepal

    Shaghayegh Sharif, Javid Taheri, Albert Y. Zomaya, and Surya Nepal. 2014. Online Multiple Workflow Scheduling under Privacy and Deadline in Hybrid Cloud Environment. In 2014 IEEE 6th International Conference on Cloud Computing Technology and Science . 455–462. https://doi.org/10.1109/CloudCom.2014.128

    work page doi:10.1109/cloudcom.2014.128 2014

Showing first 80 references.