Analysis of cost-efficiency of serverless approaches

Gourav Chhabra; Harsh Shah; Maria Spichkova; Nakhat Syeda; Rajvinder Singh; Sumedha Kumar; Suraj Jaju

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 70 references

Analysis of cost-efficiency of serverless approaches

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A systematic review identifies 17 parameters that determine whether serverless computing delivers cost savings.

desk verdict Useful 17-parameter taxonomy for serverless cost factors, but the paper's own methodology contradicts the central study count (34 vs 23) and the evidence base is not reproducible as reported. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.05836 v1 pith:QH7KUMKF submitted 2025-06-06 cs.SE

Nakhat Syeda , Harsh Shah , Rajvinder Singh , Suraj Jaju , Sumedha Kumar , Gourav Chhabra , Maria Spichkova This is my paper

classification cs.SE

keywords serverlesscomputingcostefficiencysavingssystematicliteraturereviewcloudfunction-as-a-servicecoldstartparametercatalog

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 is a systematic literature review asking what determines whether serverless computing actually saves money compared with running servers. After screening papers published between 2010 and 2024, the authors identify 34 relevant studies and extract from them 17 parameters that can influence the relative cost savings of the serverless approach. These parameters are organized into four groups: core resources (memory, computing power), code characteristics (reuse, packaging, complexity, language), execution behavior (number of hits, auto-scaling, cold versus warm starts, execution time, concurrency), and data/architecture choices (data location, scheduling, clustering, payload, scale, extra resources). The paper also gives a qualitative map of how these parameters push against one another, such as more memory raising the cost per invocation but lowering execution time.

What carries the argument

The central object is the 17-parameter catalog (Table III), grouped into core resource, code-related, execution, and data/architecture parameters. The catalog is produced by a four-phase systematic literature review: selecting a primary literature source, running an automated search with a single search string, refining the results with inclusion and exclusion criteria, and then extracting parameters from the remaining papers. The parameter list carries the argument because the review's answer to its research question is exactly this list, with a qualitative correlation map describing how the parameters interact.

What would settle it

Run the same review protocol in a second scholarly search engine and with backward snowballing from the 34 selected studies; if reasonable new parameters beyond the 17 appear, the catalog is incomplete. Alternatively, an empirical measurement where a parameter not in the list, such as provider-specific pricing tiers, changes the relative cost enough to flip a serverless-versus-server-based recommendation would also falsify the completeness claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the cost-effectiveness of serverless is not one question but a constellation of 17 parameters, and that these parameters can be meaningfully catalogued from existing research. The paper presents Table III as the identified set, P1 through P17, each tied to the studies that reported it, and Figure 1 as the correlation sketch. On the paper's own terms, anyone deciding whether to adopt serverless, or how to optimize an existing serverless application, should reason through these parameters rather than assume serverless is inherently cheaper.

Load-bearing premise

The assumption that a single relevance-sorted search using one search string and a three-page stop rule finds enough of the relevant literature to define a comprehensive parameter set.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Adoption decisions can be framed as a cost model: an application with many cold starts, heavy payloads, or large concurrency demands will erode the savings that serverless offers.
Optimization efforts now have a checklist: memory size, packaging, code reuse, start type, and scheduling are all independently addressable levers.
The correlation map suggests trade-offs such as memory versus execution time, meaning cost tuning is a balancing act rather than a single setting.
The list gives a common vocabulary for comparing studies of serverless cost, which is a direct product of the categorization.

Reading between the lines

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

The 17 parameters could be turned into a quantitative cost model if each were assigned a weight based on measured cloud pricing; the paper stops at the qualitative stage.
Because the list comes from a single search strategy, a different search protocol might surface additional parameters, so the catalog should be treated as a starting taxonomy rather than a closed set.
The correlation graph implies directional relationships that could be tested empirically, for example by measuring how execution time varies with memory allocation on a real function-as-a-service platform.
The same parameter lens could be applied to neighbouring cost questions, such as managed databases or container-based platforms, to see whether the four parameter groups generalize.

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 modest, clearly written systematic review that gives practitioners a usable checklist of 17 parameters influencing serverless cost savings, grouped into core resources, code, execution, and data/architecture. The taxonomy is plausible and each parameter carries references to primary studies; the correlation diagram is a reasonable qualitative summary of how the parameters interact. If you need a compact overview of what to watch when estimating serverless costs, this is a fine starting point.

The soft spot is not the taxonomy—it is the reporting. The abstract and conclusion both say the authors identified 34 related studies, but the methodology section, which is the only place the selection outcome is described, says 23. That is an 11-paper discrepancy with no explanation anywhere in the paper. It directly undermines the central claim because the 17-parameter catalog is presented as derived from a systematic review, and the reader cannot tell which count is accurate. The paper provides no list of included studies, no screening logs, and no exclusion details, so the selection process is not reproducible from the text alone. The search protocol is also thin: one search string, one engine, no snowballing, and a stop rule of three consecutive irrelevant pages. These are not fatal to the taxonomy, but they are exactly the kinds of omissions that make a review hard to trust.

A few smaller issues: several parameters are supported by only one or two references (P14, P16, P17), so their status as general cost factors is weaker than the rest. The correlation diagram appears to be an informal judgment rather than a derived model, which is fine as exposition but should be labeled as such. The limitations section mentions reproducibility threats but does not acknowledge the count mismatch.

Overall, the paper is a legitimate synthesis effort, not a flawed idea. The flaws are concrete and fixable: the authors need to reconcile the count, provide the full list of included studies, and ideally publish their screening data. Without those, the review cannot be verified. With them, it would be a useful contribution to a small but active subfield.

For peer review: yes, I would send this to referees. The topic is real, the parameter set is useful, and the problems are addressable in revision. It would be a disservice to desk-reject outright, but it should not be accepted in its current form.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper reports a systematic literature review (SLR) of research on cost effectiveness and cost savings of serverless computing, following Kitchenham's method. The authors state they identified 34 related studies (23 in the methodology section) and extracted 17 parameters that influence relative cost savings, grouped into core resources, code, execution, and data/architecture. For each parameter, Table III provides supporting references, and Figure 1 gives a qualitative correlation map. The paper also describes the search protocol, inclusion/exclusion criteria, and limitations.

Significance. If the parameter catalog is accepted, it provides a practically useful checklist of cost-relevant factors for serverless systems and a qualitative causal map. The paper's strength is that each parameter is linked to external sources, providing a starting point for evidence-based cost modeling. However, the reliability of the catalog as a systematic-review product is currently limited by the inconsistent study count and the absence of a machine-readable list of included studies and screening artifacts; these issues are fixable and do not necessarily invalidate the parameter set.

major comments (4)

[III (Methodology) and Abstract/Conclusion] The manuscript reports two different counts of the underlying study set: the abstract and conclusion state '34 related studies,' while Section III (Methodology) states 'Altogether, we identified 23 relevant papers.' Since the central claim is that 17 parameters were extracted from those studies, an inconsistent count directly affects the credibility of the catalog. The authors should correct the count, or provide a reconciliation (e.g., a typo) and, crucially, list the included studies so the reader can audit which count is correct.
[III (Search protocol) and V (Limitations)] The search protocol is not fully reproducible: the exact date of the Google Scholar search is absent, the claim that the search used 'title, abstract and keywords fields' is not supported by Google Scholar's search behavior, and no screening log (number of records assessed, excluded at each stage) is provided. Section V states that the methodology 'would allow us to reproduce our SLR,' but the description does not allow an independent replication. In particular, the stop rule of three consecutive irrelevant pages was reached at page 25, meaning only about 250 of the 11,000 results were examined; this coverage limitation should be justified or explicitly acknowledged as a threat to completeness.
[IV (Analysis of collected data)] The process of extracting and consolidating the 17 parameters is not documented. The paper states the selected papers were 'analysed to extract the parameters' but does not describe the extraction form, the naming and merging rules, or how disagreements were resolved. Similarly, Figure 1 is presented as a correlation map without describing how the correlations were determined or whether they are based on the cited studies or on the authors' reasoning. Without this detail, the 'systematic' status of the parameter set and its correlation map is weakened.
[V (Limitations and threats to validity)] The limitations section does not address the internal inconsistency of the study count (23 vs. 34). It also does not discuss the implication of the relevance-sorted stop rule: if relevant studies appear beyond the first three consecutive irrelevant pages, the parameter list could be incomplete. The authors should either add these as threats or provide evidence that saturation was achieved (e.g., a cumulative plot of new parameters per page).

minor comments (6)

[I (Outline)] The outline says 'SRL' but the correct acronym is 'SLR' (Systematic Literature Review).
[VI (Conclusions)] The conclusion contains 'the the relative cost savings' with a duplicated article, and it repeats the '34' count without reconciling it with the '23' stated in Section III.
[II.C (Research Embedded in Teaching)] The subsection on 'Research Embedded in Teaching' is not related to serverless cost efficiency and reads as a program description; consider moving it to an acknowledgments-like section or removing it from the related work.
[III (Methodology)] The phrase 'the search has been conducted using the title, abstract and keywords fields' should be clarified, as Google Scholar does not support field-restricted searching in the same way as publisher databases.
[IV (Table III)] Some parameters (e.g., P12, P14, P16) are supported by a single reference; for a systematic review, the authors should at least comment on the weight of evidence for each parameter.
[IV (Figure 1)] Figure 1 has no legend or explanation of the notation (e.g., arrows, signs); a brief caption or footnote would help interpret the correlations.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found; the parameter catalog is derived from external cited studies, and the paper's internal study-count inconsistency is a reporting flaw rather than a circular derivation.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an extracted catalog of 17 cost-affecting parameters from a systematic literature review. The derivation chain is: define search string, apply inclusion/exclusion criteria, identify relevant papers, extract parameters, and group/correlate them. Each parameter in Table III is attributed to external cited publications (e.g., P1 to [41], [18], [68], etc.), so the parameter set is not defined in terms of the paper's own conclusions, nor is any fitted quantity renamed as a prediction. There is no equation, normalization, or fitted parameter that would make the output equivalent to the input by construction. The authors' self-citations ([52], [53], [57], [65]) support only the Research Embedded in Teaching context in Section II-C, not the parameter extraction, and therefore are not load-bearing for the central claim. The manuscript does contain an observable internal inconsistency: the abstract and conclusion state 'We identified 34 related studies,' while Section III states 'Altogether, we identified 23 relevant papers, from which we extracted 17 parameters.' This is a factual/reporting inconsistency that undermines confidence in the stated evidence base, but it is not circularity: the 17 parameters are still presented as extracted from external studies, and the inconsistent count does not make any parameter equivalent to the search inputs. The review's external validity limitations (single search engine, one search string, no snowballing) are also correctness threats, not circular steps. No quoted step reduces to its own input by definition, self-citation, or fitting, so the appropriate circularity score is 0.

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

The central claim is a literature synthesis, so the ledger contains no fitted parameters or invented entities. The load-bearing assumptions are about search coverage, search execution, and review bias control, all of which are asserted rather than independently verified in the paper.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Google Scholar provides a sufficiently complete and reliable dataset for the systematic literature review.
Invoked in Section V: "Google Scholar is one of the largest datasets covering most of the peer-reviewed publication venues". No comparison against other databases is provided.
domain assumption The relevance-sorted Google Scholar results with a three-consecutive-page stop criterion capture the relevant literature.
Section III describes the search and stop rule; there is no validation of recall or saturation beyond this criterion.
domain assumption Author rechecking and consensus suffice to ensure accurate application of inclusion/exclusion criteria and parameter extraction.
Section V states the raw data and extractions were rechecked by the authors; no inter-rater reliability measure or independent audit is reported.
domain assumption The inclusion/exclusion criteria (refereed, English, post-2010, cost-focus) operationalize relevance correctly.
Tables I and II define these criteria, but they are not validated against an external gold standard.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Analysis of cost-efficiency of serverless approaches." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QH7KUMKF

@misc{pith2026250605836,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Analysis of cost-efficiency of serverless approaches},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QH7KUMKF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.05836}
}

read the original abstract

In this paper, we present a survey of research studies related to the cost-effectiveness of serverless approach and corresponding cost savings. We conducted a systematic literature review using Google Scholar search engine, covering the period from 2010 to 2024. We identified 34 related studies, from which we extracted 17 parameters that might influence the relative cost savings of applying the serverless approach.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.05836 by the authors.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

70 extracted references · 70 canonical work pages

[1]

Serverless computing: economic and architectural impact

Gojko Adzic and Robert Chatley. Serverless computing: economic and architectural impact. In11th joint meeting on foundations of software engineering, pages 884–889, 2017

work page 2017
[2]

Optimiz- ing inference serving on serverless platforms.Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment, 15(10), 2022

Ahsan Ali, Riccardo Pinciroli, Feng Yan, and Evgenia Smirni. Optimiz- ing inference serving on serverless platforms.Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment, 15(10), 2022

work page 2022
[3]

Determining the total cost of ownership: comparing serverless and server-based technologies

Gary Arora, Akash Tayal, and Rakinder Sembhi. Determining the total cost of ownership: comparing serverless and server-based technologies. Deloitte Consulting, 2021

work page 2021
[4]

using a microbenchmark to compare function as a service solutions

Timon Back and Vasilios Andrikopoulos. .using a microbenchmark to compare function as a service solutions. InEuropean Conference on Service-Oriented and Cloud Computing, pages 146–160. Springer, 2018

work page 2018
[5]

Result- as-a-service (raas): Persistent helper functions in a serverless offering

Arshdeep Bahga, Vijay K Madisetti, Joel R Corporan, et al. Result- as-a-service (raas): Persistent helper functions in a serverless offering. Journal of Software Engineering and Applications, 13(10):278, 2020

work page 2020
[6]

Serverless on machine learning: A systematic mapping study.IEEE Access, 10:99337–99352, 2022

Amine Barrak, Fabio Petrillo, and Fehmi Jaafar. Serverless on machine learning: A systematic mapping study.IEEE Access, 10:99337–99352, 2022

work page 2022
[7]

Experimental analysis of the application of serverless computing to iot platforms.Sensors, 21(3):928, 2021

Priscilla Benedetti, Mauro Femminella, Gianluca Reali, and Kris Steen- haut. Experimental analysis of the application of serverless computing to iot platforms.Sensors, 21(3):928, 2021

work page 2021
[8]

RTJ Bolscher. Leveraging serverless cloud computing architectures: developing a serverless architecture design framework based on best practices utilizing the potential benefits of serverless computing. Mas- ter’s thesis, University of Twente, 2019

work page 2019

Show all 70 references

[9]

Investigating performance and cost in function-as-a-service platforms

Diogo Bortolini and Rafael R Obelheiro. Investigating performance and cost in function-as-a-service platforms. InInternational Conference on P2P , Parallel, Grid, Cloud and Internet Computing, pages 174–185. Springer, 2019

2019
[10]

Cost-efficient serverless inference serving with joint batching and multi-processing

Shen Cai, Zhi Zhou, Kongyange Zhao, and Xu Chen. Cost-efficient serverless inference serving with joint batching and multi-processing. In14th ACM SIGOPS Asia-Pacific Workshop on Systems, pages 43–49, 2023

2023
[11]

Wukong: a scalable and locality-enhanced framework for serverless parallel computing

Benjamin Carver, Jingyuan Zhang, Ao Wang, Ali Anwar, Panruo Wu, and Yue Cheng. Wukong: a scalable and locality-enhanced framework for serverless parallel computing. InProceedings of the 11th ACM Symposium on Cloud Computing, pages 1–15, 2020

2020
[12]

Serverless computing for internet of things: A systematic literature review.Future Generation Computer Systems, 128:299–316, 2022

Gustavo Andr ´e Setti Cassel, Vinicius Facco Rodrigues, Rodrigo da Rosa Righi, Marta Rosecler Bez, Andressa Cruz Nepomuceno, and Cristiano Andr ´e da Costa. Serverless computing for internet of things: A systematic literature review.Future Generation Computer Systems, 128:299–...

2022
[13]

Serverless data processing: Use cases and best practice-increasing use of serverless for data processing tasks

Sandeep Chinamanagonda. Serverless data processing: Use cases and best practice-increasing use of serverless for data processing tasks. Innovative Computer Sciences Journal, 8(1), 2022

2022
[14]

Modelling and implementation of humanoid robot behaviour.Procedia computer science, 112:2249–2258, 2017

Leroy Clunne-Kiely, Bijin Idicula, Luke Payne, Enrico Ronggowarsito, Maria Spichkova, Milan Simic, and Heinrich Schmidt. Modelling and implementation of humanoid robot behaviour.Procedia computer science, 112:2249–2258, 2017

2017
[15]

Serverless ai: Democratizing machine learning with cloud functions.Journal of Informatics Education and Research, 2(1):22–35, 2022

Arth Dave, Krishnateja Shiva, Pradeep Etikani, VVSR Bhaskar, and Ashok Choppadandi. Serverless ai: Democratizing machine learning with cloud functions.Journal of Informatics Education and Research, 2(1):22–35, 2022

2022
[16]

Sizeless: Predicting the optimal size of serverless functions

Simon Eismann, Long Bui, Johannes Grohmann, Cristina Abad, Nikolas Herbst, and Samuel Kounev. Sizeless: Predicting the optimal size of serverless functions. In22nd International Middleware Conference, pages 248–259, 2021

2021
[17]

The state of serverless applications: Collection, characterization, and community consensus.IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 48(10):4152–4166, 2021

Simon Eismann, Joel Scheuner, Erwin Van Eyk, Maximilian Schwinger, Johannes Grohmann, Nikolas Herbst, Cristina L Abad, and Alexandru Iosup. The state of serverless applications: Collection, characterization, and community consensus.IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 48...

2021
[18]

Be wary of the economics of”” serverless”” cloud computing.IEEE Cloud Computing, 4(2):6–12, 2017

Adam Eivy and Joe Weinman. Be wary of the economics of”” serverless”” cloud computing.IEEE Cloud Computing, 4(2):6–12, 2017

2017
[19]

Costless: Optimizing cost of serverless computing through function fusion and placement

Tarek Elgamal. Costless: Optimizing cost of serverless computing through function fusion and placement. In2018 IEEE/ACM Symposium on Edge Computing (SEC), pages 300–312. IEEE, 2018

2018
[20]

Function- as-a-service application service composition: Implications for a natural language processing application

Mohammadbagher Fotouhi, Derek Chen, and Wes J Lloyd. Function- as-a-service application service composition: Implications for a natural language processing application. InProceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Serverless Computing, pages 49–54, 2019

2019
[21]

V oice-activated solutions for agile retrospective sessions.Procedia Computer Science, 159:2414– 2423, 2019

Purwa Kishor Gaikwad, Chris Theodore Jayakumar, Eashan Tilve, Niraj Bohra, Wenfei Yu, and Maria Spichkova. V oice-activated solutions for agile retrospective sessions.Procedia Computer Science, 159:2414– 2423, 2019

2019
[22]

Usage visualisation for the aws services.Procedia Computer Science, 176:3710–3717, 2020

Lettisia Catherine George, Yanan Guo, Denis Stepanov, Vikas Ku- mar Reddy Peri, Roshan Lakmal Elvitigala, and Maria Spichkova. Usage visualisation for the aws services.Procedia Computer Science, 176:3710–3717, 2020

2020
[23]

Scheduling mechanisms in serverless computing

Mostafa Ghobaei-Arani and Mohsen Ghorbian. Scheduling mechanisms in serverless computing. InServerless Computing: Principles and Paradigms, pages 243–273. Springer, 2023

2023
[24]

A sur- vey on the scheduling mechanisms in serverless computing: a taxonomy, challenges, and trends.Cluster Computing, pages 1–40, 2024

Mohsen Ghorbian, Mostafa Ghobaei-Arani, and Leila Esmaeili. A sur- vey on the scheduling mechanisms in serverless computing: a taxonomy, challenges, and trends.Cluster Computing, pages 1–40, 2024

2024
[25]

Spock: Ex- ploiting serverless functions for slo and cost aware resource procurement in public cloud

Jashwant Raj Gunasekaran, Prashanth Thinakaran, Mahmut Taylan Kan- demir, Bhuvan Urgaonkar, George Kesidis, and Chita Das. Spock: Ex- ploiting serverless functions for slo and cost aware resource procurement in public cloud. In2019 IEEE 12th International Conference on Cloud C...

2019
[26]

Understanding cost dynamics of serverless computing: An empirical study

Muhammad Hamza, Muhammad Azeem Akbar, and Rafael Capilla. Understanding cost dynamics of serverless computing: An empirical study. InInternational Conference on Software Business, pages 456–
[27]

Survey on serverless computing.Journal of Cloud Computing, 10:1–29, 2021

Hassan B Hassan, Saman A Barakat, and Qusay I Sarhan. Survey on serverless computing.Journal of Cloud Computing, 10:1–29, 2021

2021
[28]

Mitigating cold start problem in serverless computing using predictive pre-warming with machine learning.Computing, 107(1):1–24, 2025

Qingmiao Hu, Hongwei Li, and Elaheh Nikougoftar. Mitigating cold start problem in serverless computing using predictive pre-warming with machine learning.Computing, 107(1):1–24, 2025

2025
[29]

An investigation of the impact of language runtime on the performance and cost of serverless functions

David Jackson and Gary Clynch. An investigation of the impact of language runtime on the performance and cost of serverless functions. In2018 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Utility and Cloud Computing Companion (UCC Companion), pages 154–160. IEEE, 2018

2018
[30]

Acts: autonomous cost- efficient task orchestration for serverless analytics

Jananie Jarachanthan, Li Chen, and Fei Xu. Acts: autonomous cost- efficient task orchestration for serverless analytics. In2023 IEEE/ACM 31st International Symposium on Quality of Service (IWQoS), pages 1–
[31]

Amps-inf: Automatic model partitioning for serverless inference with cost efficiency

Jananie Jarachanthan, Li Chen, Fei Xu, and Bo Li. Amps-inf: Automatic model partitioning for serverless inference with cost efficiency. In50th International Conference on Parallel Processing, pages 1–12, 2021

2021
[32]

A systematic evaluation of machine learning on serverless infrastructure.The VLDB Journal, 33(2):425–449, 2024

Jiawei Jiang, Shaoduo Gan, Bo Du, Gustavo Alonso, Ana Klimovic, Ankit Singla, Wentao Wu, Sheng Wang, and Ce Zhang. A systematic evaluation of machine learning on serverless infrastructure.The VLDB Journal, 33(2):425–449, 2024

2024
[33]

Server-less cloud computing – an economical solution for business operations

Alpana Kakkar and Armaan Farshori. Server-less cloud computing – an economical solution for business operations. InInnovations in Computer Science and Engineering, pages 145–154. Springer, 2020

2020
[34]

Kitchenham, Tore Dyba, and Magne Jorgensen

Barbara A. Kitchenham, Tore Dyba, and Magne Jorgensen. Evidence- based software engineering. InProceedings of the 26th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), pages 273–281, 2004

2004
[35]

Cloud computing: serverless

Arne Koschel, Samuel Klassen, Kerim Jdiya, Marc Schaaf, and Irina Astrova. Cloud computing: serverless. In2021 12th International Conference on Information, Intelligence, Systems & Applications (IISA), pages 1–7. IEEE, 2021

2021
[36]

Serverless computing: state-of-the-art, challenges and opportunities

Yongkang Li, Yanying Lin, Yang Wang, Kejiang Ye, and Chengzhong Xu. Serverless computing: state-of-the-art, challenges and opportunities. IEEE Transactions on Services Computing, 16(2):1522–1539, 2022

2022
[37]

A survey of cost optimization in serverless cloud computing

Zhe Li, Yusong Tan, Bao Li, Jianfeng Zhang, and Xiaochuan Wang. A survey of cost optimization in serverless cloud computing. InJournal of Physics: Conference Series, volume 1802, page 032070. IOP Publishing, 2021

2021
[38]

Optimal pricing for serverless computing

Kunal Mahajan, Daniel Figueiredo, Vishal Misra, and Dan Rubenstein. Optimal pricing for serverless computing. In2019 IEEE Global Communications Conference (GLOBECOM), pages 1–6. IEEE, 2019

2019
[39]

Performance modeling of serverless computing platforms.IEEE Transactions on Cloud Comput- ing, 2020

Nima Mahmoudi and Hamzeh Khazaei. Performance modeling of serverless computing platforms.IEEE Transactions on Cloud Comput- ing, 2020

2020
[40]

Bench- marking serverless computing platforms.Journal of Grid Computing, pages 1–19, 2020

Hor ´acio Martins, Filipe Araujo, and Paulo Rupino da Cunha. Bench- marking serverless computing platforms.Journal of Grid Computing, pages 1–19, 2020

2020
[41]

Serverless computing: Design, implementation, and performance

Garrett McGrath and Paul R Brenner. Serverless computing: Design, implementation, and performance. In2017 IEEE 37th International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems Workshops (ICDCSW), pages 405–410. IEEE, 2017

2017
[42]

A traffic analysis on serverless computing based on the example of a file upload stream on aws lambda.Big Data and Cognitive Computing, 4(4):38, 2020

Lisa Muller, Christos Chrysoulas, Nikolaos Pitropakis, and Peter J Barclay. A traffic analysis on serverless computing based on the example of a file upload stream on aws lambda.Big Data and Cognitive Computing, 4(4):38, 2020

2020
[43]

Sock: Serverless-optimized containers.USENIX Open Access Policy, page 17, 2018

Edward Oakes, Leon Yang, Dennis Zhou, Kevin Houck, Tyler Caraza- Harter, Andrea C Arpaci-Dusseau, and Remzi H Arpaci-Dusseau. Sock: Serverless-optimized containers.USENIX Open Access Policy, page 17, 2018

2018
[44]

Faastest-machine learning based cost and performance faas optimization

Tal Oyar and Afik Deri. Faastest-machine learning based cost and performance faas optimization. InEconomics of Grids, Clouds, Sys- tems, and Services: 15th International Conference, GECON 2018, Pisa, Italy, September 18–20, 2018, Proceedings, volume 11113, page 171. Springer, 2019

2018
[45]

Sustainable serverless computing with cold-start optimization and automatic workflow resource scheduling.IEEE Trans- actions on Sustainable Computing, 2023

Shanxing Pan, Hongyu Zhao, Zinuo Cai, Dongmei Li, Ruhui Ma, and Haibing Guan. Sustainable serverless computing with cold-start optimization and automatic workflow resource scheduling.IEEE Trans- actions on Sustainable Computing, 2023

2023
[46]

Litmus: Fair pricing for serverless computing.ASPLOS, 2024

Qi Pei, Yipeng Wang, and Seunghee Shin. Litmus: Fair pricing for serverless computing.ASPLOS, 2024

2024
[47]

Empirical eval- uation of cold start latency in serverless platforms

Vinay Raj, Himanshu Chhaparwal, and Satwik Saale. Empirical eval- uation of cold start latency in serverless platforms. In2024 3rd International Conference for Advancement in Technology (ICONAT), pages 1–6. IEEE, 2024

2024
[48]

Cost efficiency under mixed serverless and serverful deployments

Anja Reuter, Timon Back, and Vasilios Andrikopoulos. Cost efficiency under mixed serverless and serverful deployments. In2020 46th Euromi- cro Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications (SEAA), pages 242–245. IEEE, 2020

2020
[49]

Mlless: Achieving cost efficiency in serverless machine learning training.Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing, 183:104764, 2024

Pablo Gimeno Sarroca and Marc S ´anchez-Artigas. Mlless: Achieving cost efficiency in serverless machine learning training.Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing, 183:104764, 2024

2024
[50]

What serverless computing is and should become: The next phase of cloud computing.Communications of the ACM, 64(5):76–84, 2021

Johann Schleier-Smith, Vikram Sreekanti, Anurag Khandelwal, Joao Carreira, Neeraja J Yadwadkar, Raluca Ada Popa, Joseph E Gonzalez, Ion Stoica, and David A Patterson. What serverless computing is and should become: The next phase of cloud computing.Communications of the ACM, 6...

2021
[51]

Vishal Shahane. Serverless computing in cloud environments: Architec- tural patterns, performance optimization strategies, and deployment best practices.Journal of AI-Assisted Scientific Discovery, 2(1):23–43, 2022

2022
[52]

Enhanc- ing learning experience by collaborative industrial projects

Milan Simic, Maria Spichkova, Hainz Schmidt, and Ian Peake. Enhanc- ing learning experience by collaborative industrial projects. InInter- national Conference on Engineering Education and Research (ICEER), 2016

2016
[53]

Industry-oriented project-based learning of software engineering

Maria Spichkova. Industry-oriented project-based learning of software engineering. In2019 24th International conference on engineering of complex computer systems (ICECCS), pages 51–60. IEEE, 2019

2019
[54]

Smi: Stack management interface

Maria Spichkova, Jesse Bartlett, Ryan Howard, Adrian Seddon, Xing Zhao, and Yuanqing Jiang. Smi: Stack management interface. In2018 23rd International Conference on Engineering of Complex Computer Systems (ICECCS), pages 156–159. IEEE, 2018

2018
[55]

Maria Spichkova, Hina Lee, Kevin Iwan, Madeleine Zwart, Yuwon Yoon, and Xiaohan Qin. Agile Retrospectives: What went well? What didn’t go well? What should we do? In20th International Conference on Evaluation of Novel Approaches to Software Engineering (ENASE), 2025

2025
[56]

Vm2: Automated security configuration and testing of virtual machine images.Procedia Computer Science, 176:3610–3617, 2020

Maria Spichkova, Biao Li, Lachlan Porter, Luke Mason, Ye Lyu, and Yi Weng. Vm2: Automated security configuration and testing of virtual machine images.Procedia Computer Science, 176:3610–3617, 2020

2020
[57]

Autonomous systems research embedded in teaching

Maria Spichkova and Milan Simic. Autonomous systems research embedded in teaching. InInternational Conference on Intelligent Interactive Multimedia Systems and Services, pages 268–277. Springer, 2017

2017
[58]

Application of computer vi- sion technologies for automated utility meters reading

Maria Spichkova and Johan Van Zyl. Application of computer vi- sion technologies for automated utility meters reading. InInterna- tional Conference on Software Technologies, pages 521–528. INSTICC, SciTePress, 2020

2020
[59]

Comparison of computer vision approaches in appli- cation to the electricity and gas meter reading

Maria Spichkova, Johan Van Zyl, Siddharth Sachdev, Ashish Bhardwaj, and Nirav Desai. Comparison of computer vision approaches in appli- cation to the electricity and gas meter reading. InEvaluation of Novel Approaches to Software Engineering: 14th International Conference, pag...

2020
[60]

Software development for autonomous and social robotics systems

Chong Sun, Jiongyan Zhang, Cong Liu, Barry Chew Bao King, Yuwei Zhang, Matthew Galle, Maria Spichkova, and Milan Simic. Software development for autonomous and social robotics systems. InIntelligent Interactive Multimedia Systems and Services: Proceedings of 2018 Conference 11...

2018
[61]

Mit- igating cold start problem in serverless computing: A reinforcement learning approach.IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 10(5):3917–3927, 2022

Parichehr Vahidinia, Bahar Farahani, and Fereidoon Shams Aliee. Mit- igating cold start problem in serverless computing: A reinforcement learning approach.IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 10(5):3917–3927, 2022

2022
[62]

Rise of the planet of serverless computing: A systematic review.ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, 32(5):1–61, 2023

Jinfeng Wen, Zhenpeng Chen, Xin Jin, and Xuanzhe Liu. Rise of the planet of serverless computing: A systematic review.ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, 32(5):1–61, 2023

2023
[63]

Making serverless not so cold in edge clouds: A cost-effective online approach.IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, 2024

Ke Xiao, Song Yang, Fan Li, Liehuang Zhu, Xu Chen, and Xiaoming Fu. Making serverless not so cold in edge clouds: A cost-effective online approach.IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, 2024

2024
[64]

Adaptive function launching acceleration in serverless computing platforms

Zhengjun Xu, Haitao Zhang, Xin Geng, Qiong Wu, and Huadong Ma. Adaptive function launching acceleration in serverless computing platforms. In2019 IEEE 25th International Conference on Parallel and Distributed Systems (ICPADS), pages 9–16. IEEE, 2019

2019
[65]

Project-based learning within ehealth, bioengineering and biomedical engineering application areas.Procedia Computer Science, 192:4952–4961, 2021

Jeffery Young, Maria Spichkova, and Milan Simic. Project-based learning within ehealth, bioengineering and biomedical engineering application areas.Procedia Computer Science, 192:4952–4961, 2021

2021
[66]

Gillis: Serving large neural networks in serverless functions with automatic model partitioning

Minchen Yu, Zhifeng Jiang, Hok Chun Ng, Wei Wang, Ruichuan Chen, and Bo Li. Gillis: Serving large neural networks in serverless functions with automatic model partitioning. In2021 IEEE 41st International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems (ICDCS), pages 138–
[67]

Characterizing serverless platforms with serverlessbench

Tianyi Yu, Qingyuan Liu, Dong Du, Yubin Xia, Binyu Zang, Ziqian Lu, Pingchao Yang, Chenggang Qin, and Haibo Chen. Characterizing serverless platforms with serverlessbench. InProceedings of the 11th ACM Symposium on Cloud Computing, pages 30–44, 2020

2020
[68]

Mark: Exploiting cloud services for cost-effective, slo-aware machine learning inference serving

Chengliang Zhang, Minchen Yu, Wei Wang, and Feng Yan. Mark: Exploiting cloud services for cost-effective, slo-aware machine learning inference serving. In2019 USENIX Annual Technical Conference, pages 1049–1062, 2019

2019
[69]

Faster and cheaper serverless computing on harvested resources

Yanqi Zhang, ´I˜nigo Goiri, Gohar Irfan Chaudhry, Rodrigo Fonseca, Sameh Elnikety, Christina Delimitrou, and Ricardo Bianchini. Faster and cheaper serverless computing on harvested resources. InProceedings of the ACM SIGOPS 28th Symposium on Operating Systems Principles, pages...

2021
[70]

A map of threats to validity of systematic literature reviews in software engineering

Xin Zhou, Yuqin Jin, He Zhang, Shanshan Li, and Xin Huang. A map of threats to validity of systematic literature reviews in software engineering. In2016 23rd Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference (APSEC), pages 153–160. IEEE, 2016

2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Serverless computing: economic and architectural impact

Gojko Adzic and Robert Chatley. Serverless computing: economic and architectural impact. In11th joint meeting on foundations of software engineering, pages 884–889, 2017

work page 2017

[2] [2]

Optimiz- ing inference serving on serverless platforms.Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment, 15(10), 2022

Ahsan Ali, Riccardo Pinciroli, Feng Yan, and Evgenia Smirni. Optimiz- ing inference serving on serverless platforms.Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment, 15(10), 2022

work page 2022

[3] [3]

Determining the total cost of ownership: comparing serverless and server-based technologies

Gary Arora, Akash Tayal, and Rakinder Sembhi. Determining the total cost of ownership: comparing serverless and server-based technologies. Deloitte Consulting, 2021

work page 2021

[4] [4]

using a microbenchmark to compare function as a service solutions

Timon Back and Vasilios Andrikopoulos. .using a microbenchmark to compare function as a service solutions. InEuropean Conference on Service-Oriented and Cloud Computing, pages 146–160. Springer, 2018

work page 2018

[5] [5]

Result- as-a-service (raas): Persistent helper functions in a serverless offering

Arshdeep Bahga, Vijay K Madisetti, Joel R Corporan, et al. Result- as-a-service (raas): Persistent helper functions in a serverless offering. Journal of Software Engineering and Applications, 13(10):278, 2020

work page 2020

[6] [6]

Serverless on machine learning: A systematic mapping study.IEEE Access, 10:99337–99352, 2022

Amine Barrak, Fabio Petrillo, and Fehmi Jaafar. Serverless on machine learning: A systematic mapping study.IEEE Access, 10:99337–99352, 2022

work page 2022

[7] [7]

Experimental analysis of the application of serverless computing to iot platforms.Sensors, 21(3):928, 2021

Priscilla Benedetti, Mauro Femminella, Gianluca Reali, and Kris Steen- haut. Experimental analysis of the application of serverless computing to iot platforms.Sensors, 21(3):928, 2021

work page 2021

[8] [8]

RTJ Bolscher. Leveraging serverless cloud computing architectures: developing a serverless architecture design framework based on best practices utilizing the potential benefits of serverless computing. Mas- ter’s thesis, University of Twente, 2019

work page 2019