diff --git a/assets/SOSYM-25-00005370_Proof_hi_1768242985741_0.edn b/assets/SOSYM-25-00005370_Proof_hi_1768242985741_0.edn index c3eb3071..0f80b059 100644 --- a/assets/SOSYM-25-00005370_Proof_hi_1768242985741_0.edn +++ b/assets/SOSYM-25-00005370_Proof_hi_1768242985741_0.edn @@ -1 +1 @@ -{:highlights [], :extra {:page 7}} +{:highlights [], :extra {:page 11}} diff --git a/pages/EditoringChairing___SOSYM-25-00005370.md b/pages/EditoringChairing___SOSYM-25-00005370.md index ea2d43d0..0f17f54e 100644 --- a/pages/EditoringChairing___SOSYM-25-00005370.md +++ b/pages/EditoringChairing___SOSYM-25-00005370.md @@ -16,6 +16,7 @@ todoist:: https://app.todoist.com/app/task/software-and-systems-modeling-manuscr - ### [[Comments]] - Reviewer 1 / REJECT - Confidential comment + collapsed:: true - I suspect there may be some use of generative AI in this submission. I only sampled a few references, and found issues in most of them. See this part of my review below: - The bibliographic references need to be thoroughly checked. I selected [21-25] as a sample, and found issues in all of them: - The DOI link for [21] points to a different ICWS 2010 paper ("Formal Specification and Verification of Data-Centric Service Composition"). Please correct your link. @@ -94,6 +95,38 @@ todoist:: https://app.todoist.com/app/task/software-and-systems-modeling-manuscr - The DOI link for [24] points to a different CLOUD 2012 paper. I could not find a paper with this title in Google Scholar (""An approach for tenant placement in multi-tenant saas applications"). I could not find this paper among the CLOUD 2012 papers, either. - I could not find the paper [25]. I could not find any paper with that title ("Formal concept analysis for dynamic resource reconfiguration in energy-efficient cloud computing") in Google Scholar, the DOI link does not work, and the relevant volume and issue of the journal do not list any papers with "Formal" in the title: https://www-computer-org.libproxy.york.ac.uk/csdl/journal/cc/2023/02. - Reviewer 2 / REJECT + - Dear authors, + thanks for your submission. + + Let me first start with the positive aspects of this submission. + The article is very interesting and has a well-defined goal: to minimize the energy consumption of cloud providers while satisfying SLAs and packing the maximum number of tenants while using the minimum number of servers. The approach makes use of an FCA formalization of the tenants and servers, and a set of algorithms for the consolidation and placement of tenants. The experimental Section 6 reveals how your FCA-based approach improves over a set of four related algorithms: the BFD, GA, vDRS, and RL. The comparison is well elaborated with a set of seven evaluation metrics, and results show how your FCA-based approach improves over the four alternative algorithms. + + Let me now discuss the negative aspects of this submission. + 1) While the abstract and introduction refer to system modeling, this article does not find its best expression in the SOSYM magazine, in my opinion. Is FCA a model? Is this paper formally analyzing a model through model-based engineering techniques? Does FCA come with a metamodel? + + Let me first tell you that I had to do some deep reasoning and search on FCA before coming to this reflection. Based on my understanding and research, the FCA is a mathematical framework, grounded in lattice theory, for discovering and representing conceptual structures from data. It organizes objects and attributes into hierarchical "concepts" that reveal commonalities, facilitating knowledge discovery across different contexts. Therefore, the paper employs a mathematical model and algorithms built upon it to address an energy efficiency problem. I could not see "theoretical foundations of modeling languages and techniques", nor a model-based or model-driven approach to solve the identified problem. + Therefore, I honestly believe that other journals may provide a better fit with the identified solution. + + 2) The FCA-based approach works under a number of assumptions, initially defined in Section 1.4, eventually discussed in Section 7.2, and with directions for future improvement analysed in Section 7.3. Overall, this is a concern, partially compensated for by the evaluation performed in Section 6. What I would need, however, is for the authors to clarify whether the comparative approaches also suffer from the same limitations/assumptions or not. + + 3) There are a number of presentation and conceptual mistakes to be fixed or clarified. + - Section 5.1 concludes with "The migration process operates systematically by:", then, Section 5.2 starts! The text on page 21 seems to be a continuation of Section 5.1, rather than a new Section 5.2. + - Section 5.3: please fix the references to algorithms. + - Section 5.4: it is incomplete. + - Section 6.1: the decision to consider up to 500 tenants per server is justified. However, why consider resource vectors with a value between 100 and 500 units? + - Section 6.2.1: please remove lines 12-32, since they are overlooked by Section 6.2.1. It appears that the current Section 6.2 is an outdated version of Section 6.2.1. Could you also provide a better justification for why the four selected algorithms represent the most common and advanced strategies? + - Starting from Section 6.3, figures appear very far away from the text that cites them. Moreover, for some strange editing reasons, Figure x+1 is cited before Figure x, and this requires jumping a few pages ahead for searching the referenced figure. + - A replication package for the conducted experiments is missing. + - Section 6.3.3: in line 44, you report that the FCA-based approach is "superior to the greedy BFD approach". What do you mean by superior? Figure 15 clearly reports that the BFD approach is subject to fewer violations than the FCA-based approach. + - Figures 16 and 17 are useless, since they are already included in Table 8. + - Section 7: references are missing in both Figures and Tables. + - Table 1 makes an interesting summary of tenant/VM placement approaches in cloud computing. The related text, however, shall quantify the "computational overhead of metaheuristics or the myopia of simple heuristics". + - Formula 1 on page 13 reports that the objective of the proposed approach is to minimize the amount of server resources. This is true; however, the formula shall also make it visible the need to maximize the number of tenants on the minimum number of servers. It seems this part is missing from the formula. + - Typo: page 14, line 35, it shall be "recall" rather than "reacll" + - Typo: page 26, line 31, it shall be "Table 3" rather than "Table 2". + + OVERALL: + An interesting article that is, in my opinion, better suited for a different journal and requires some polishing. - Reviewer 3 / REJECT - The paper proposes a model-driven approach to address energy inefficiencies in multi-tenant cloud data centers caused by resource fragmentation and inter-tenant interference. The authors introduce a methodology using Formal Concept Analysis (FCA) to systematically identify semantic dependencies between tenants based on shared application usage, constructing a concept lattice to guide tenant grouping. Two core algorithms, the Algorithm for Placement of Tenants (APT) and the Algorithm for Consolidation of Tenants (ACT), are developed to leverage this lattice for optimizing resource utilization and minimizing network traffic. The approach is evaluated via simulation using CloudSim Plus, with results reporting significant reductions in active servers and energy consumption compared to baselines such as Best-Fit Decreasing and Genetic Algorithms. diff --git a/pages/SOSYM.md b/pages/SOSYM.md index 720fea03..0f0ad790 100644 --- a/pages/SOSYM.md +++ b/pages/SOSYM.md @@ -1,3 +1,4 @@ +filters:: {} full-title:: International Journal on Software and Systems ModelingSOSYM link:: [SoSyM](https://www.sosym.org/) type:: [[JOURNAL]]