Cluster Computing

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10586-020-03099-x (0123456789().,-volV)(0123456789().,-volV)

An intelligent approach for predicting resource usage by combining

decomposition techniques with NFTS network
Seyedeh Yasaman Rashida1 • Masoud Sabaei2 • Mohammad Mehdi Ebadzadeh2 • Amir Masoud Rahmani1

Received: 21 September 2019 / Revised: 13 March 2020 / Accepted: 22 March 2020

 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2020

Abstract
Time sensitive virtual machines that run real-time control tasks are constrained by hard timing requirements. Optimal
resource management and guarantee the hard timing requirements of virtual machines are critical goals. Basically, cloud
resource usage predicting and resource reservation play a crucial role to achieve these two goals. So, we propose a
predicting approach based on two-phase decomposition method and hybrid neural network to predict future resource usage.
This paper uses a clustering method based on the AnYa algorithm in an on-line manner in order to obtain the number of
fuzzy rules and the initial value of the premise and consequent parameters. Since cloud resource usage varies widely from
time to time and server to server, extracting the best time series model for predicting cloud resource usage depend not only
on time but on the cloud resource usage trend. For this, we present a recursive hybrid technique based on singular spectrum
analysis and adaptively fast ensemble empirical mode decomposition to identify the hidden characteristics of the time
series data. This method tries to extract seasonal and irregular components of the time series. According to the simulation
results, it can be found that the proposed model can have significantly better performance than the three comparison models
from one-step to six-step CPU usage predictions with the MAPE of 33.83% average performance promotion, MAE of
36.54% average performance promotion, RMSE of 36.70% average performance promotion.

Keywords Takagi–Sugeno network  Singular spectrum analysis (SSA)  Adaptive fast EEMD (AFEEMD) 
Cloud computing  Future resource usage

1 Introduction geographically in different datacenters of cloud which are

virtualized and allocated to the user applications. The
Cloud computing has been widely used in various fields applications can consist of hard real-time control tasks,
with the advantages of plenty of resource provision and which have strict timing requirements expressed as hard
pay-as-you-go model [1]. Resources are distributed deadlines [2]. They could also be grouped into on–off,
high-growth, periodic and aperiodic-burst depending on
their workload [3]. Different user applications may require
& Masoud Sabaei different on-demand resources with parameter constants
sabaei@aut.ac.ir
such as start time, execution time, number of virtual
Seyedeh Yasaman Rashida machines (VMs) and deadlines [4, 5]. However, the VM
s.y.rashida@gmail.com
scheduling within a hard deadline while considering dif-
Mohammad Mehdi Ebadzadeh ferent VM parameter is quite interesting and challenging
ebadzadeh@aut.ac.ir
one. There are several optimized time sensitive VM
Amir Masoud Rahmani scheduling methods [6–11]. Solving the problem with
rahmani@srbiau.ac.ir
meta-heuristics take a long time and they fail to validate
1
Department of Computer Engineering, Science and Research whether the provisioned resources were optimally used [3]
Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran and hard real-time VM constraints are met. On the other
2
Department of Computer Engineering and Information hand, simple greedy algorithms cannot guarantee optimal
Technology, Amir Kabir University of Technology, Tehran, resource provisioning while maintaining a high quality of
Iran

123

service (i.e. cost). So, predicting the future of users’
demands and cloud resource usage can be applied to handle
this issue [12].
The cloud resource usage over time can be regarded as a
time series since recent investigation indicated that it is
highly correlated over time. The time series predicting
methods are important tools for helping the decision
making and preventive planning measures by experts.
Thus, applying time series prediction models is useful for
prediction [12]. These methods try to identify patterns in
historical time series data and develop a model to build the
future temporal patterns of series [13, 14]. However,
resource demands change constantly and sometimes fluc-
tuate very strong, making it difficult for accurate predic-
tions to be produced [1, 15]. In the following, we are
addressing that what type of method is required to char-
acterize resource usage patterns and also predict the
resource usage and why this method is applied to predict
future resource usage.
The resource usage can be predicted through several
approaches. Most of approaches can be classified in two
categories: statistical techniques (model-based) and
machine learning methods (data-based) [16]. The applica-
tion of approaches based on the statistics heavily depends
on the a priori statistical statements, such as specification
of relationship between variables (e.g. independence) and
the model-specific assumptions regarding the process
probability distributions (e.g., the outcome variable may be
required to be binomial). Auto-Regression (AR) is one of
the most commonly used model-based tools [17]. However,
methods based on the statistics such as measuring the
maximum or average resource usage for specified time
intervals are very general and not capable of producing
accurate predictions. The prediction models based on such
methods are considered to be poor as they are not good in
prediction and correspond to a very few numbers of cases
[16]. On the other hand, these approaches are primarily
based on the assumptions of the stationarity in time series
and linearity among normally distributed variables [18].
However, stationarity, linearity and normality assumptions
are not satisfied in workload demands. The newest and the
most common proposed predictors are based on machine
learning techniques [19] such as Support Vector Machine
(SVM) [20, 21], Genetic Algorithm (GA) [22], Neural
Network (NN) [23–29], Fuzzy Neural Network (FNN)
[30–35], Moving Average (MA) and AR [36] and Hybrid
Prediction Approaches [37–40]. Machine learning methods
are widely being adopted for establishing more accurate
prediction models [6].
Although the machine learning based models have
achieved remarkable results, there are still limitations.
Firstly, the most models do not have an explicitly mecha-
nism to handle the non-stationarity of workload. Secondly,
123
Cluster Computing
they do not pay attention to the interactions between fea-
tures at different scales. For example, for the NNs or deep
network models, which are also widely used in many other
applications such as image processing, mechanical trans-
lation, speech recognition and so on, the non-linearities
mainly handled by the activation functions, and there are
few techniques addressing the non-linear interactions
among the inputs [33]. Among these models, FNN inherits
the learning ability of NNs and the inference technology of
fuzzy systems, which can be used as an effective method
for dealing with complex nonlinear systems. Therefore,
many researchers have used the FNN approaches to rep-
resent complex plants and construct advanced controllers
[41–43].
In this paper, we apply a hybrid prediction model to
infer the current situation and predict future resource usage
of hosts can be used to overcome previous problems. We
propose the composition of a data-based approach with a
model-based approach for achieving advantages of data-
based and model-based approaches. we choose AR from
model-based approaches and FNN from data-based
approaches. AR is a simple linear model. This simple linear
model is frequently found to produce smaller prediction
errors than techniques with complicated model forms due
to their parsimonious [44]. However, two issues should be
noticed. On one hand, linear approaches may output
unsatisfactory predicting accuracy when the focused sys-
tem illustrates a nonlinear trend. This new arising problem
indicates that model structure is instable. According to
Clements and Hendry [45], this structural instability has
become a key issue, which dominates the predicting per-
formance [44]. To settle this problem, AR is composed
with FNN.
Among FNNs, Takagi–Sugeno (TS) fuzzy prediction
model has attracted extensive attention [46] due to its
better generalization and excellent approximation in the
dense region [15]. So, we choose Neuro-Fuzzy Takagi–
Sugeno network (NFTS). Since the proposed network is
combined NFTS and AR networks, we call the network as
NFTSAR. In classic TS fuzzy neural network (NFTS),
which is a linear polynomial of the input variables, the
system output is approximated locally by the rule hyper-
planes. Nevertheless, the traditional NFTS does not take
full advantage of the mapping capabilities that the conse-
quent part might offer [47]. In [37], Sarıca et al. proposed
the composition of classical ANFIS with AR, namely AR-
ANFIS that had advantages of data-based and model-based
approaches. AR-ANFIS was not capable to identify sea-
sonal and irregular patterns. It also had disadvantages of
classical NFTS. In order to solve these issues, the original
time series needs to be stabilized before constructing the
prediction method [48]. So, we present a methodology that
works on two objectives, characterizing and predicting. In
Cluster Computing
the characterizing stage, historical resource usage patterns
of hosts in the cloud data centers will be identified. On the
other word, this stage extracts seasonal and irregular events
of the resource usage patterns. In the predicting stage, the
level of resource usage of hosts used by hard real-time
VMs will be predicted. So, our proposed method is com-
bined a two-phase decomposition technique with the
NFTSAR network to characterize and predict the resource
usage. The proposed decomposition method is a Recursive
hybridization of SSA and AFEEMD, namely RSA. Con-
sequently, the modified hybrid prediction method, RSA–
NFTSAR, is presented for predicting and identifying
dynamic cloud system. The proposed methodology is an
online learning approach that decreases the prediction error
with time. It also considers the behavioral changes of
demands in predictors.
As say before, we present a recursive version of the two-
phase decomposition strategy, RSA, to characterize sea-
sonal and irregular time series and promote the predicting
performance. The RSA–NFTSAR uses the hidden com-
ponents data to predict future resource usage accurately. In
our approach, we use the hidden components data to obtain
the fuzzy rules without any assumption about the structure
of the data and independent of the model structure. The
structure identification and parameter optimization steps in
this approach are done automatically and with the optimal
number of the rules in an acceptable accuracy. In this
methodology, the predicting is performed for each hidden
component separately. Then, the predicting results of each
component are composed to provide the future value for
the original time series. The main contributions of the
paper are presented in the following:
• Identify the hidden characteristics of the original data
by applying recursive two-phase decomposition algo-
rithm, namely RSA.
• Presenting a prediction methodology for seasonal and
irregular time series, not only on the single-step
predicting but also on the multistep predicting.
• Increasing accuracy of the future resource usage
prediction by identifying the hidden components of
time series.
• Evaluating the performance of the proposed prediction
approach under the dataset of the CoMon project
regarding prediction accuracy metrics.
The paper is organized as follows. In Sect. 2, the related
works are discussed. Section 3 deals with proposed
methodology including decomposition-ensemble model
and neural network structure. Evaluation results will be
observed in Sect. 4 and conclusions as well as future
researches will be provided in Sect. 5.
2 Related works
Many prediction models have been proposed since they
become more and more essential for computer systems
[12]. In this section, we briefly review previous works
related to this work on cloud and distributed computing.
A survey on challenges and approaches of resource
demand prediction in cloud computing has been reported in
the paper [25]. Nguyen et al. [49] presented a VM con-
solidation with a usage prediction algorithm that was based
on multiple resource usage predictions to estimate long-
term future resource utilization. By knowing the last n
recorded usages, the next usage was generated via multiple
linear regressions (LR). The resulting algorithm was exe-
cuted during the VM consolidation process and decided
when a host was underused or overloaded based on the
current and future states, thus avoiding future SLA viola-
tions. This method was based on the oversimplified
assumptions of the workload (the linear relationship). The
method was trained and parameterized based on past
observations in the workload behavior. Therefore, it cannot
capture the behavioral changes in workloads. So, this
method should be retrained to adapt to the workload
changes as the prediction error increases. Consequently, it
takes a long time. In [50], Tang et al. combined LR and
wavelet NN techniques into a prediction method to forecast
the cloud data center short-term workload and reduce the
energy consumption of cloud data center servers, network,
and cooling systems.
Gapta et al. [51] proposed a resource utilization
approach based on AR for load balancing. While load
balancing helped energy consumption and SLA formula-
tion, it did not consider the impact of dynamic workload on
energy consumption and SLA. This method provided the
one-step-ahead prediction and a general view of the future
trend of the application behavior. However, in this method,
the prediction accuracy decreased as the interval length of
prediction increased. On the other hand, although the
model was implemented simple but it was not effective for
extrapolation because of its simplicity. Tao et al. [52]
proposed a multi-strategy collaborative prediction model
(MSCPM) for the runtime of online tasks. They introduced
a novel concept named Prediction Accuracy Assurance
(PAA) as a criterion to evaluate the precision of the pre-
diction runtime provided by a specific prediction strategy.
Kecskemeti et al. [53] proposed a technique for predicting
generic background workload by means of simulations.
The technique was capable to provide additional knowl-
edge of the underlying private cloud systems in order to
support activities like cloud orchestration or work flow
enactment. The technique also used long running scientific
workflows and their behavior discrepancies and tried to
123

replicate these in a simulated cloud with known workloads.
Unfortunately, it was unable to extract hidden features (i.e.
trend, seasonal, irregular features) in original data.
Artificial intelligence and machine learning techniques
provide an opportunity for the development of a cognitive
cloud system. In recent years, reinforcement learning has
proven to be a promising autonomous approach for the
optimal allocation of cloud resources [45]. The reinforce-
ment learning based approaches need no domain knowl-
edge. They are able to adapt to the behavioral changes of
applications using generating new policies [54]. The scal-
ability of reinforcement learning is poor in the large state
space. The initial policies of reinforcement learning affect
the convergence speed to the optimal policy. Thus, the poor
initial policy might lead to the poor performance of rein-
forcement learning [55]. In [56], Thein et al. proposed a
framework for cloud resource allocation with the aim of
green cloud resource deployment. The framework was on
the basis of reinforcement learning mechanism and fuzzy
logic. The simulation results showed that this framework
can achieve effective performance for the high data center
energy efficiency and prevent SLA violation respectively.
Although this approach improved the accuracy and inter-
pretability of model, it was unable to extract hidden fea-
tures in original data. The model also had disadvantages of
reinforcement learning based approaches.
Some recent works also introduced machine learning to
self-adaptive resource allocation [57, 58]. Zheng et al. [57]
used a load predictor that clustered historical resource
utilization and selected the cluster set with the highest
similarity as a training sample into a NN. Cioara et al. [58]
proposed a methodology for energy management in data
centers. They showed that the model can help to calculate
the level of energy efficiency in data centers at runtime. In
recent years, learning automata were used as a technique
for energy management in smart grid and cloud computing
[59, 60]. Automata models of learning systems introduced
in the 1960s were popularized as learning automata in a
survey paper in 1974 [61]. Learning Automata was pro-
posed to maximize the reinforcement received from the
environment. This approach provides a lot of flexibility in
designing an appropriate learning system in different
applications [62]. Rahmanian et al. [12] proposed ensemble
algorithm based on learning automata. This algorithm
predicted the cloud resource usage by employing two
approaches namely Single Window and Multiple Window.
The simulation results showed the high performance of the
proposed approach for the cloud environment. The model
was unable to extract hidden features in original data.
In [48], the authors proposed an integrated forecasting
method. The method equipped with noise filtering and data
frequency representation, named Savitzky–Golay and
Wavelet-supported Stochastic Configuration Networks
123
Cluster Computing
(SGW-SCN), to predict the future workload. In the method,
the workload time series was first smoothed by a Savitzky–
Golay filter and then decomposed into multiple compo-
nents via wavelet decomposition (WD). With stochastic
configuration networks (SCN), an integrated model was
established to characterize the statistical characteristics of
both trend and detail components. Although the main
advantage of WD was the provision of temporal informa-
tion, it was not suitable for time-invariant transform [63].
On the other hand, the choice of the wavelet function
affected the decomposition result. Usually, this choice was
empirical, depending on previous experience knowledge or
trial and error [63]. It was not a useful method where there
was no human activity interference. On the other hand, the
used WD method just decomposed the original time series
into two hidden components. In the environment with more
hidden components than two, this approach cannot be
suitable.
Mason et al. [15] proposed CPU usage prediction
approach by using a number of state of the art swarm and
evolutionary optimization algorithms, such as particle
swarm optimization (PSO), differential evolution (DE), and
covariance matrix adaptation evolutionary strategy. They
used traditional NN for prediction. Results showed that the
covariance matrix adaptation evolutionary strategy-trained
NN outperformed both DE and PSO. Traditional NNs did
not require restrictive assumptions about the form of data
and can model well the nonlinear behavior of the appli-
cation [55]. They cloud also be used to model the corre-
lation among input and output. There was no specific rule
for determining the structure of NNs. Their network
structure was achieved through experience and trial and
error [53]. So, this issue reduced trust in the network. Jiang
et al. [64] proposed a multi-prediction model, including the
ARMA model and the feedback based online AR model.
This model predicted current and future resource avail-
ability and scheduled hybrid workloads in the cloud data
center to reduce task failures and increase resource uti-
lization. The implementation of this model was simple. In
this approach, input data must be continuous and the
convergence of finding weights was dependent to the
learning rates. Moreover, this model was unable to extract
hidden features in original data.
Long-short-term memory (LSTM) models are a recur-
rent network architecture in conjunction with an appro-
priate gradient-based learning algorithm [65]. These
models are good for the high noisy one-dimensional time
series. LSTM models were used in [23, 24, 66] to model
the long-range dependence in cloud workloads. In [66], an
approach was presented for predicting future resource
usage trends. This approach used univariate LSTM models.
The model required computing and storing multiple gating
neuron responses at each step. The model was unable to
Cluster Computing
extract hidden features (i.e. trend, seasonal, irregular fea-
tures) in original data. Babu et al. [67] introduced an
interference-aware prediction mechanism for VM migra-
tion. This mechanism used automatic scaling policies to
handle sudden load changes with precise prediction and
minimum VM migration. In [68], Kumar and Patel pro-
posed a predicting model based on ANN and PSO to
minimize the cost and Makespan. The proposed model
resolved issues like dynamic and heterogeneous cloud
computing environment, reliability, availability and over-
loaded problem. Witanto et al. [69] proposed an NN-based
method for selecting the best VM consolidation algorithm.
This method adaptively chose appropriate algorithm
according to cloud provider’s goal priority and environ-
ment parameters. As explain before, there was no specific
rule for determining the structure of NNs. The appropriate
network structure was achieved through experience and
trial and error.
In [1], Chen and Wang proposed a resource demand
prediction method based on ensemble empirical mode
decomposition (EEMD) and ARIMA in cloud computing.
This method decomposed the non-stationary users’
resource demands into a plurality of intrinsic mode func-
tion components (IMFs) and residual component (RES)
through EEMD method to improve prediction accuracy.
The proposed method did not require restrictive assump-
tions about the form of data. It could also be used to model
the correlation among input and output. The structure of
network was achieved through experience and trial and
error. So, this issue reduced trust in the network. In [70],
Kaur et al. presented an intelligent regressive ensemble
approach for resource usage prediction which integrated
feature selection and prediction techniques to achieve high
performance. The implementation of the model was sim-
ple. It needed a lot of data to train. So, training of the
model took a long time. It also was probable that the
resource manager cloudnot interpret some prediction
results. Moreover, it was unable to extract hidden features
in original data and adapted to workload changes. Kumar
and Singh [16] used NN and self-adaptive differential
evolution algorithms for workload prediction. The perfor-
mance of the model was evaluated using NASA and Sas-
katchewan servers’ datasets. The proposed model reduced
the prediction error rate and the results were compared with
the back-propagation learning algorithm.
Cloud resource management requires complex policies
and decisions to ensure the suitable use of computing
resources [71] due to fluctuations in the demanding
workload. Deciding the right amount of resource usage for
performing user requests in cloud environments is not
trivial [72]. In [72], the authors applied a couple of smooth
filters to decrease the negative impacts of outliers in the
observed data points. They also presented a framework for
cloud resource management including a prediction module
to estimate resource usage more accurately. They used
biased theory in their proposed model. The Bayesian theory
is simple. It is able to incorporate initial information of the
resource manager as prior probabilities in the predictor
[55]. However, due to the non-linear behavior and the load
dynamics of cloud applications, filtering did not seem
appropriate here. It eliminated the useful information about
the load dynamics. Thus, the resource manager could not
allocate the appropriate resources to applications. On the
other hand, if the resources manager could not provide
prior information, it had to be estimated from the past
behavior of the application. For adapting to the behavioral
changes of the application, the prior probabilities had to be
recomputed. Moreover, the model also was unable to
extract hidden features in original data.
Manjula and Folurence [73] introduced a hybrid
approach by combining genetic algorithm (GA) for feature
optimization with deep neural network (DNN) for classi-
fication. They improved the fitness function of GA and
chromosome designing and computation. DNN technique
was also improvised using adaptive auto-encoder which
provided better representation of selected software fea-
tures. However, DNN-based methods required significantly
more computation than traditional methods, which leaded
to high energy consumption [74]. In [75], Fei et al. pre-
sented a kind of rough-set predicative analysis method for
heat insulation performance of the composite wall in hot
summer and cold winter zone. This method was improved
precision of the heat insulation performance analysis
algorithm of the composite wall. In [55], a wide study on
prediction models of applications for resource provisioning
in the cloud had been presented that investigated the main
characteristics and challenges of the different models.
Deep Belief Network (DBN) was one type of DNNs
which used densely connected Restricted Boltzmann
Machines (RBMs). DBN, as the feature learning approach
in regression models, had been investigated for predictive
analytics. To predict the resource request in cloud com-
puting, DBN was proposed in [76] to optimize the job
schedule and balance the computational load. DNNs did
not take into account the temporal information contained in
data series [77]. So, it was unable to predict large temporal
datasets accurately. Moreover, the proposed model had one
hidden layer. a 2-layer DBN was RBM, and a stack of
RBMs shared parametrization with a corresponding DBN
[78]. So, it would be RBM instead of DBM and would have
disadvantages of RBMs. A disadvantage of RBN was the
approximate inference based on mean field approach was
slower compared to a single bottom-up pass as in DBN.
Mean field inference needed to be performed for every new
test input. However, DBN was more generative than auto-
encoder and needed less memory than RNN. Muralitharan
123

et al. [79] compared different NN for the energy demand
prediction in the smart grid. However, the authors did not
consider the effects of temporal time series on prediction
accuracy.
Wang et al. [80] proposed a Sparse DBN with FNN
(SDBFNN) for nonlinear system modeling. They consid-
ered the sparse DBN as a pre-training technique to realize
fast weight-initialization and to obtain feature vectors. The
results were shown that this approach balanced the dense
representation to improve its robustness. In [81], a growing
DBN with transfer learning (TL-GDBN) was proposed to
automatically decide its structure size. The approach
accelerated its learning process and improved accuracy of
model. In the method, at first, a basic DBN structure with a
single hidden layer was initialized and then pretrained. The
learned weight parameters also were frozen. Then, the
method used transfer learning (TL) to transfer the knowl-
edge from the learned weight parameters to newly added
neurons and hidden layers. It could achieve a growing
structure until the stopping criterion for pretraining was
satisfied. In this method, the weight parameters derived
from pretraining of TL-GDBN were further fine-tuned by
using layer-by-layer partial least square regression from
top to bottom. This caused avoiding many problems of
traditional backpropagation algorithm-based fine-tuning.
Table 1 summarizes most of the works related to
resource usage prediction approaches. The table discusses
the advantages and disadvantages of the related works. As
explain in above, the main disadvantage of most approa-
ches is that they are unable to extract hidden features in
original data and adapt with workload changes. For this, we
decide to present an approach to solve these kinds of issues.
In the following section, we will explain our proposed
solution.
3 The proposed RSA–NFTSAR architecture
This section describes the details of the proposed RSA–
NFTSAR for predicting and characterization of seasonal
time series consisting of (1) A recursive two-phase
decomposition method, and (2) Adaptive NFTSAR based
prediction scheme.
The structure of the proposed RSA–NFTSAR is shown
in Fig. 1. This structure consists of four steps, prepro-
cessing, training, predicting, and evaluating. Pre-process-
ing data techniques are a significant step in the data mining
process. These techniques play an important role in Arti-
ficial NNs (ANN) by fostering high precision and minimal
computational costs at the training stage as noisy and
unreliable information that could be present in data records
will adversely affect the learning phase and result in a poor
model [83]. In the pre-processing step, data is extracted
123
Cluster Computing
from the raw data. Then, data is aggregated into a minute
unit level. We assume that a timestamp is recorded every
5 min. The aggregated data is passed to the decomposition
step, which is responsible for extracting and identifying the
fluctuation characteristics in resource usage by VMs. In
this paper, we propose a recursive two-phase decomposi-
tion strategy which is composed of SSA with AFEEMD
method. In the first phase, the aggregated data is passed to
SSA to reduce the noise of the original data. Following the
noise reduction by using the SSA method, AFEEMD is
used to decompose the difficult resource usage prediction
task into some simple prediction subtasks in the second
phase. The proposed decomposition approach is detailed in
Sect. 3.2.
Then, we normalize decomposed data into range (0, 1)
and sent it to NFTSAR as input data. NFTSAR network is
based on Neuro-Fuzzy Takagi–Sugeno network (NFTS).
NFTS has the benefits of both fuzzy logic and NNs in a
single framework. It has a fuzzy inference system with
learning capability [32]. In this work, we improve the
NFTS network by composing NFTS with linear AR to
achieve the advantages of data-based and model-based
approaches. The new methodology attempts to deal with
the non-stationary behavior, uncertainties, and other com-
plexities of resource usage series in a cloud computing
environment.
The proposed methodology has three other operation
stages in addition to the pre-processing stage: the training
stage, the predicting stage, and the evaluating stage.
Training means the determination of the parameters
belonging to parts of the proposed NFTSAR network. This
stage works when the observation from time series is
available. Thus, this stage analyzes n previous resource
usage values in order to predict upcoming resource usage
on the data center at time n þ 1.
If there is no available data, the predicting step starts.
The detailed discussion on training and predicting stages
are done in Sect. 3.4. After the training, its accuracy is
evaluated in the evaluating stage that is critical for decision
making. For this, the prediction data is transformed into the
original format and the MSE, MAPE, and RMSE are cal-
culated to evaluate its accuracy. In the following subsec-
tions, we explain used data series in the network and each
step of the proposed methodology.
3.1 Data series
A time series is a sequence of numbers taken at successive
equally spaced points in time [84, 97]. Each data point in
time series is a measurement captured at different times-
tamps [68]. Generally, a time series data can be denoted as
N  M two-dimensional matrix (Eq. 1).
Cluster Computing

Table 1 Strengths and weaknesses of most of the works related to resource usage prediction approaches
Refs Approach Strength Weakness

[15, 16, 69, 79, 82] NN Simple implementation Picking the correct topology
Modeling nonlinear behavior of application Training take a long time and needs a lot
Ability to learn the relationship between input and output of data
It is probable that resource manager
cannot interpret some results
Unable to adapt with workload changes
It is not effective for extrapolation
Unable to extract hidden features in
original data
[1] EEMD-ARIMA Simplicity It is should retrained to adapt to workload
Interpretability changes
Data should be independent
Application behavior should be linear
Unable to extract hidden features in
original data
[45, 56] Reinforcement learning Adaptability to the behavioral changes of workload Poor scalability in the large state space
No need for domain knowledge Unable to extract hidden features in
original data
[51] AR Simple implementation Picking the correct topology
Modeling nonlinear behavior of application The long time and a lot of data for
training
It is probable that resource manager
cannot interpret some results
Unable to adapt with workload changes
It is not effective for extrapolation
Unable to extract hidden features in
original data
[76] DBN It is better than traditional NN in persisting the information from Unable to predict large temporal datasets
previous event accurately
It is more generative than auto-encoder and needs less memory It has expensive inference since it must
than RNN be performed for every new test input
Unable to extract hidden features in
original data
[64] ARMA model and the Limited accuracy due to the poor feature-extracted ability The convergence of the weights is
feedback based online AR Very simple dependent to the learning rates
model Input data must be continuous
Relatively easy to implement
It is temporally stable The network has to be retrained if
disturbances are introduced to the
Independent of the initial conditions system
Unable to extract hidden features in
original data
[70] Regressive Ensemble Simple implementation Picking the correct topology
Approach Modeling nonlinear behavior of application Training take a long time and needs a lot
of data
It is probable that resource manager
cannot interpret some results
Unable to adapt with workload changes
It is not effective for extrapolation
Unable to extract hidden features in
original data
[12, 59] Learning Automata No need to knowledge of the environment in which it operates or Unable to extract hidden features in
any analytical knowledge of the function to be optimized original data
adapt the control action to system limitations
[72] Bayesian technique Simplicity Independence of features describing
Simple interpretation application behavior
Unable to adapt with workload changes
Unable to extract hidden features in
original data

123

Table 1 (continued)
Refs Approach Strength
[66] LSTM Learn long-term dependencies
Ability learn to extract useful information from data
Good for the high noisy one-dimensional time series
LSTM is designed to escape the long-term dependency issue of
RNN
Fig. 1 Resource usage
prediction approach workflow
X ¼ ½ Xð1Þ . . .; XðjÞ; . . . XðNÞ T ð1Þ
X ð jÞ ¼ ½ X 1 ðjÞ . . .; X i ðjÞ; . . . X M ðjÞ  ð2Þ
Here N is the total number of time stamps, M is number
input variables at the jth time stamp, XðjÞ denotes the jth
observation of input variables ð1  j  NÞ, and X i ðjÞ
denotes the jth observation of ith input variable
(1  i  M). We assume that M is equal one in this paper.
This variable is related to the number of host resources.
3.2 Structural description of proposed recursive
two-phase decomposition approach
Most of the resource usage prediction methods perform
forecasts by mainly modeling the original time series.
However, multiple seasonal patterns in the original series
can lead to the complexity of the prediction model,
weakening the generalization capability of the models [85].
Two parameters, the prediction accuracy, and computa-
tional cost, are important in the resource usage prediction.
The data decomposition, which could reduce the non-sta-
tionary feature of the original data, promotes the predicting
performance indirectly [86]. There are many approaches to
perform the decomposition task. The decomposition
method should be chosen based on the time series features
and expert’s goals [14, 87]. In this paper, we develop a
recursive two-phase decomposition method to achieve a
higher quality of resource usage decomposition and
enhance the predicting precision. The proposed method is
called RSA, which is composed of SSA with AFEEMD.
123
Cluster Computing
Weakness
It requires computing and storing
multiple gating neuron responses at
each step
Unable to extract hidden features in
original data
This method extracts the trend, irregular and seasonal
components from time series data and removes noise with
low computational cost. These patterns are simpler than the
original time series and they help experts to understand the
series behavior [14, 87].
As explain before, we present a recursive two-phase
method in which SSA runs in the first phase and AFEEMD
runs in the second phase. Before describing the proposed
decomposition method, we describe our reasons for using
these two techniques as follows.
SSA is employed in the analysis of time series and
combines multivariate statistic and probability theory, and
it is often used for identifying and extracting periodic,
quasi-periodic and oscillatory components from the primal
data [86]. We choose this method because the SSA method
does not make any statistical assumptions [83] and not
being restricted to predetermined components, i.e., trend,
seasonal, and cycle patterns, for example [13]. Therefore,
the different types of components are determined from the
time series data. Although, experts can determine the
number of patterns which be extracted [13].
In the second phase, we use AFEEMD as defined in [88]
which is an extension of the empirical mode decomposition
(EMD) [64] and EEMD techniques [89]. The major
breakthrough of AFEEMD reduces the time complexity
and solve the predicament of parameters selection in
EEMD [88]. This technique also optimizes the procedure
coding of the original EMD techniques like the FEEMD
technique [90]. For this, we use the AFEEMD method in
Cluster Computing

the second phase. The technique can decompose an original
signal into a series of IMFs and a residue.
Moreover, the hybrid methods outperform individual
forecasting models and promote the predicting perfor-
mance. Consequently, we apply a two-phase decomposi-
tion method to achieve the described goals. The proposed
RSA method includes eight steps, which the first four steps,
Embedding, Singular Value Decomposition (SVD),
Grouping and Diagonal Averaging, are related to the SSA
phase and the next three steps, Upper frequency prescrib-
ing, Ensemble trials and Final extraction, are related to
[38]. Define I ¼ fI 1 ; . . .; I m g and Y I ¼ Y I 1 þ Y I 2 þ . . .
þY I m , then Y I can represent the trend component of the
resource usage time series data, while the other ðd  mÞ
components are considered as noise. In diagonal averaging
step, each matrix Y I j of the grouped decomposition is
transformed into a new series with lengthN. Let Y be an
L  K matrix with elements y‘ ¼ y‘ ; whereL ¼ F
‘ þ  1; 1  ‘  L; 1   K. Set L ¼ minðL; K Þ; K  ¼
F F
maxðL; K Þ andN ¼ L þ K  1. Let y‘ ¼ y‘ if L\K and
F F
y‘ ¼ y ‘ otherwise. By making diagonal averaging, the
F F
^ ^

AFEEMD phase. The method performs a recursive update matrix Y is transferred into series X ð1Þ; . . .; X ðN Þ using
(eighth step) to reduce the computational complexity and the Eq. 5 [91].
speeds up the extraction process. The proposed method is 8 k
>
> 1X 
summarized in Fig. 2 and described as follows. >
> y ; for 1  k\L
>
> k m¼1 m;kmþ1
In the embedding step, the values of three parameters, >
>
>
<1X L
N; L; m, should be determined. Let L be as the window ^
X ðk Þ ¼ y ; for L  k\K 
length, N be the initial number of time series samples and >
> L m¼1 m;kmþ1
>
>
m be the number of hidden components extracted. We >
> X
NK 
þ1
>
> 1
assume that user determines these parameters initially. >
:N  K þ 1 ym;kmþ1 ; for K   k\N
m¼kK  þ1
After initialization, the series data X ¼ ½X ð1Þ; . . .; X ðN Þ of
length N is shifted to a Hankel matrix Y ¼ ðY 1 : . . . : Y K Þ ð5Þ
with L  K dimensions, where 2  L  N and K ¼ This corresponds to averaging the matrix elements over
N  L þ 1. F
the anti-diagonals‘ þ ¼ k þ 1; the choice k = 1 gives
The values of ascending diagonal in the Hankel matrix Xð1Þ ¼ y1;1 for k = 2 we have the moment of the
are equal from left to right [13]. Each element of the ^

Hankel matrix Y is defined as Yi ¼ ðX ðiÞ;    X ð2Þ ¼ ðy1;2 þ y2;1 Þ=22, and so on. Diagonal averaging
X ði þ L  1ÞÞ; i ¼ 1; . . .; K. The lagged vectors Y i are the applied to a matrix Y I k produces a reconstructed series
^ ðkÞ
^ ^
columns of the Hankel matrix Y and the Y is given as X ¼ X ð1ÞðkÞ ; . . .; X ðNÞðkÞ Þ [92]. Therefore, the initial
follows:
 L;K series X ð1Þ; . . .; X ðN Þ is decomposed into a sum of m
Y ¼ ðY 1 : . . . : Y K Þ ¼ y‘ ‘; ¼1
F F reconstructed series:
2 3
Xð1Þ Xð2Þ . . . XðKÞ X
m
^
6 Xð2Þ Xð3Þ . . . XðK þ 1Þ 7 X SSA ðtÞ ¼ X ðtÞðkÞ ; ðt ¼ 1; 2; . . .; NÞ ð6Þ
6 7
6 : : : : 7 k¼1
¼6 7 ð3Þ
6 : : : : 7 After extracting the hidden components by the SSA
4 5
: : : :
method and remove noise, the second phase will be started
XðLÞ XðL þ 1Þ . . . XðNÞ LK
to refine the time series again and detect the trend com-
In the next step (SVD), the SVD of the Hankel matrix Y ponents of the extracted time series X SSA . This phase
is performed. Set the covariance matrix C N ¼ YY T and converts a group of time series into multiple empirical
denote byki ; ði ¼ 1; . . .; LÞ, the eigenvalues of C N taken in modes, named as the IMFs which are ranged from high to
the decreasing order of magnitudeðk1      kL  0Þ. ki low frequencies. The procedure of the AFEEMD method is
refers to the partial alteration of the original time series briefly described in three steps as follows.
pffiffiffiffi
inU i , U i denotes the left eigenvector, and Vi ¼ YiT Ui ki The first step, frequency prescribing, is responsible for
denotes the right eigenvector. Then, matrix Y can be determining the appropriate upper frequency limit of the
decomposed into d components, whered ¼ rankðY Þ ¼ added white noise. We describe this procedure as follows.
maxfi; suchthatki [ 0g. In this notation, matrix Y can be At first, the upper frequency limit of the added noise,
further rewritten as follows: f ui ¼ ði þ 1Þf s , i ¼ 1; . . .; @, is prescribed to the extracted
signal, X SSA ðtÞ. Let f s be the sampling frequency of the
Y ¼ Y1 þ Y2 þ . . . þ Yd ð4Þ
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi signal X SSA ðtÞ. In EEMD, the frequency of the added white
whereYi ¼ ki Ui ViT . In the eigentriple grouping step, m noise is determined based on the sampling frequency of the
out of d components are selected as the trend components original signal [88], and for the convenience of the inter-
polation in the next step, the frequency, f ui is the integral

123
 Cluster Computing

Fig. 2 Cycle of RSA method for time series decomposition

multiples of the sampling frequency f s . Generally, the PðtÞ ¼ X SSA ðtÞ þ gðtÞ
value of @ is suggested to be 10 to 20. The cubic spline ð8Þ
N ðtÞ ¼ X SSA ðtÞ  gðtÞ
interpolation for the signal X SSA ðtÞ is done. Let X i ðtÞ be the
Then, EMD method is performed on the new pair of
interpolated signal where the data length of X i ðtÞ is equal noise-added signals ðPðtÞ; NðtÞÞ. It causes a collection of
to the length of the signal X SSA ðtÞ. Then, the decomposition IMFs and the residues are obtained (Eq. 9).
of signal X i ðtÞ is performed using the original EEMD 8
> P.
method. We assume that the number of ensemble trials is >
< Pð t Þ ¼ cþ
i þ r.
þ
i¼1
two, the noise amplitude is 0.01 standard deviation (SD) P. ð9Þ
>
>
and f ui Hz is the upper frequency limit of the added white : N ðt Þ ¼ ci þ r 
.
i¼1
noise. After determining the different upper frequency
limit, RRMSE values are calculated by the following where cþi is the i th IMF of the noise–added signal with
equation. positive noise and c
i represents the i th IMF of the noise-
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi added signal with negative noise, r þ 
PN  2 . and r . are the final
PN  
t¼1 X i ðtÞ  cmax ði; tÞ
2
RRMSEi ¼ X i ðtÞ residue. The . is the number of IMFs. In the final step of
t¼1
AFEEMD, the means of all the corresponding IMFs is
ð7Þ calculated by Eq. 10.
Let N be the length of the original signal and cmax 1
ci ¼ ðcþ þ c
i Þ ð10Þ
denotes the IMF component with the highest correlation to 2 i
the original signal X i ðtÞ. After calculation RRMSE values, where ci , is the i th primary IMF component derived by the
the upper frequency limit in which the RRMSE reaches the AFEEMD method. In the AFEEMD method, the amplitude
maximum is selected as the proper upper frequency limit of the added white noise and the number of ensemble trials
f p. are fixed as 0.01 SD and two [88]. After time series is
In ensemble trial step, one pair of white noises decomposed by the AFEEMD method, we assume that the
ðgðtÞ; gðtÞÞ is added to the signal X SSA ðtÞ to generate one observed additive time series is the form:
pair of polluted signals ðPðtÞ; NðtÞÞ with positive and v ¼ X trend þ X season þ X irregular þ X cycle ð11Þ
negative noise,
where X trend is trend components, X season is seasonal

123
Cluster Computing
components, X cycle and X irregular are cycle and irregular
term. Trend and cyclical components are long-term non-
stationary components. So, we will not make a distinction
between these two components and rewrite Eq. 11 as
follows:
v ¼ X trendCycle þ X season þ X irregular ð12Þ
The final step of the proposed two-phase decomposition
method is called a recursive update, which is responsible
for updating the parameters of the proposed approach and
reducing the time-consuming. For this, after running the
proposed training methodology for the first time (explained
in Sects. 3.3 and 3.4), the Recursive update cycle of the
proposed decomposition method begins (Fig. 2). In the
recursive step, for each time series sample X(k)
k ¼ N þ 1; N þ 2; . . ., the L value is incremented by
Eq. 13.
L ¼ L þ 1orL ¼ k  L þ 1 ð13Þ
In the online implementation, the SVD of the Hankel
covariance matrix should be performed at each time, this
issue is time-consuming in order that Hankel matrix Y is
with dimension L  K and when a new time series sample
arrives, the L should update. So, the dimension of this
matrix is modified at each time instant. For this reason, the
time of computation is not interesting. In this approach, we
calculate the SVD of the Hankel covariance matrix (C k )
recursively which uses the current sample vector (uL ) and
the previous covariance estimates (C k1 ) at any timek
(Eqs. 14 and 15).
2 3
yL
6y 7 t
uk ¼ 4 Lþ1 5 ð14Þ
...
yk L1
k1 1 where b
Ck ¼ C þ u :uTk ð15Þ
k k1 k k
By this approach, time-consuming to perform the SVD
of the Hankel covariance matrix can be reduced. After the
proposed decomposition method applies to input data, the
extracted data is normalized into range (0,1) and then is
sent to the NFTSAR network to predict future resource
usage.
3.3 Structural description of NFTSAR network
This section focuses on the overall workflow of the
NFTSAR method. Among methods for nonlinear system
modeling, NFTS prediction model has attracted extensive
attention due to its better generalization and excellent
approximation in the dense region [33]. It has the benefits
of both fuzzy logic and NNs in a single framework. Hence,
the NFTS network is considered a more optimal way as
well as better efficiency than the only neuro-fuzzy system
[32]. For this, this paper uses the NFTS network to predict
the future resource usage of hosts in the cloud data centers.
The network structure of the prediction model is shown in
Fig. 3, respectively. The network has five layers. All nodes
at the same layer have similar functions. After the trend,
seasonal and irregular components extraction by proposed
the two-phase decomposition approach, the components
are sent to the NFTSAR network to training data. In the
following, we describe each layer of the NFTSAR network.
Layer 1. After extracting the hidden components, the
first layer is started. This layer generates the antecedent
propositions of fuzzy rules using the knowledge extracted
from the hidden components data [12, 13, 93]. At first, a
data stream dt is generated for each instantt. The dt con-
siders n extracted components by proposed decomposition
approach, dt ¼ ðv1 ðt  1Þ; v2 ðt  1Þ; . . .; vn ðt  1Þ; X 0 ðtÞÞ;
dt 2 R1ðnþ1Þ . Let X 0 ðtÞ be the desired output used for
NFTSAR training and ðv1 ðt  1Þ; v2 ðt  1Þ; . . .; vn ðt  1ÞÞ
be the inputs to NFTSAR network.
Since the data of different components can have sig-
nificantly different ranges in its values, it is necessary to
normalize or standardize data stream dt [31]. Thus, it is
important to apply one of both techniques to transform the
data so that they have comparable ranges. In this paper, we
consider standardization, because the mean and the SD
which are used in this method accumulate the effects of all
data online. For each element of data
dt ¼ ðd t1 ; . . .; dtj ; . . .; dtnþ1 Þ, the method can be written as
[13]
d tj  mtj
b
dj ¼ ; 1  j  n þ 1; t [ N þ 1 ð16Þ
dtj
t
d j is the standardized value of elementdtj . The initial
t
value of mtj and bd j are zero and the initial value of dtj is one
(1  j  n þ 1; t  N þ 1Þ. The mean mtj and the SD dtj can
be updated recursively by Eqs. 17 and 18.
t  1 t1 1 t
mtj ¼ mj þ d j ; 1  j  n þ 1; t [ N þ 1 ð17Þ
t t
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
t t  1 t1 2 1 t
dj ¼ dj þ =td  mt2j ; 1  j  n þ 1; t [ N þ 1
t
ð18Þ
where N ? 1 is the first instant t after the initial conditions
of the two-phase decomposition method.
Then, we use an unsupervised learning technique based
t
on the AnYa algorithm to extract knowledge from data b d.
Andonovski et al. [93] proposed this technique for evolving
the structure in an on-line manner. This method divides the
t
time series b
d into several data clouds. The method uses a
123
 Cluster Computing

Fig. 3 Structure of the NFTSAR network

cloud based algorithm to determine the data clouds from  t X

j  
standard data, simplify the fuzzy rule base and elimination it b
d j ¼ j Ht Dtj;w ð21Þ
of extra rules. The degree of membership of a cloud is w¼1

obtained by the normal relative density of a given data At first, a cloud is created with the arrival of the first
t
sample bd (Eq. 19).
j
data. Then, the evolution process starts at time N ? 1. As
the data stream affects the density of the existing clouds at
 t Ht X R    
lij b
dj ¼   Ht Dw;t
j ;t [ N þ 1 ð19Þ any time, the local density value Ht Dtj;w and the global
Di;t
j w¼1  t
density of it b d j are updated as follows (Eqs. 22 and 23).
where R is the number of clouds or fuzzy rules and
    Mi
2
Ht Di;t is the local density of ith cloud for data sample i;t Mi X
j Ht b
dj ¼ iþ ðDi;t
j;w Þ ð22Þ
M
Di;t
j which is obtained by the distance between the current w¼1

sample and all other samples of that cloud. The local  t j1 2
it b
dj ¼ Pj1 ð23Þ
density value of each standard data sample Di;t
j is calcu- j1þ w¼1 ðDtj;w Þ
lated according to the following [94],
The used evolution process in this paper is done in two
 i;t
 Mi
X   steps. The following describes each of the two stages in
Ht b
dj ¼ j Ht Di;t
j;w ð20Þ detail.
w¼1
Action 1 (Data Cloud Generation). A data stream has
where M i is the number of data points in the ith cloud and
information about unexplored regions in data space [13] or
Di;t
j;w is the distance between the current sample and the it has high generalization capacity if it fulfills the following
other sample of the ith cloud. Here, Euclidean distance is criteria.
used. The global density of it is calculated for a given  
sample b
t
d as follows. If the global density of the new data sample it d^jt is
j
larger than the global density of all the existing clouds,

123
Cluster Computing
 i;t 
then a new cloud will be created (Eq. 24). Let it b
d j be
the global density of new data samples.
 t  i;t 
it bd j [ it b dj 8iji ¼ ½1; R ð24Þ
Action 2 (Data Cloud Reduction). To removing the
redundancy and control high overlap between data clouds,
we investigate the following conditions after a new fuzzy
rule is created.
1. If this condition is satisfied for some existing data
clouds, then these clusters are replaced with the new
data clouds generated by Action 1.
 i;t 
9i; i ¼ ½1; RjHt b
d j [ e1 ð25Þ
2. If it detects less active in a data cloud, the cloud should
be removed [93]. We define activity as the number of
data samples associated with the data cloud and
calculate from the moment of the cloud’s creation.
This condition is defined as follows.
Sti
\1=R ð26Þ
t  ti
where ti is the moment of the ith cloud’s creation and 1
2 ½0; 1 is a constant parameter. If 1 = 0 then no data
cloud will be removed, while if 1 = 1 then with adding
a new data cloud, the previous one will be removed. In
practice, the constant 1 should be within [0, 1), usually
0.1 [93]. We choose 0.1 for the constant 1 in this paper.
However, if these both actions (Data Cloud Generation
t
and Reduction) are not net, it means that the data points b d
are associated with the closest existing cloud.
t of these parameters is detailed in layer 3.
According to data b d , the propositions of fuzzy rule have
the following composition,
  R i
Rule i : IF d^t1 cloud i then x ! classargmaxi¼1 ðl Þ ð27Þ
where li is the membership of ith cloud.
Layer 2. This layer investigates the impact of fuzzy rules
in time series prediction. Firing strength of the succeeding
node is the output of this layer. We assign a degree
(Eq. 28) for each rule by multiplying the membership
degree of the input/output variables in the membership
function. Activation degree denotes to what extent these
rules influence the others.
nþ1  
Y t
xti ¼ lij b
dj ð28Þ
j¼1
Then, the input weights are normalized and the nor-
malized firing strength is calculated by Eq. 29.
xt
kti ¼ PR i ð29Þ
q¼1 xtq
where kti is the normalized firing level of the ith rule at
instant t.
Every rule has an antecedent and a consequent part. The
antecedent of each rule uses the information of the input
data, and the consequent of each rule calculates the output
of the model. One of the most important advantages of the
AnYa algorithm is that in spite of the traditional fuzzy rule
based systems that need to be determined antecedent and
consequent, the algorithm does not need to determine these
parameters. So, the time complexity of this algorithm is
lower than traditional methods in determining these
parameters [94].
Based on the used consequent type, the consequent
parameters are determined. Since the structure of the model
can be modified according to input data, in this paper a
recursive strategy is used to estimate the consequent
parameters. The corresponding fuzzy inference system
(TS) is as follows.
 
Rule i : IF d^t1 cloud i THEN
...t
d i ¼ kti ½ati vðt  1Þ þ bti u^ðt  sÞ ð30Þ
where at 2 Rnn ; bti 2 Rnn ; b
u ðt  sÞ 2 Rn1 , and
h i ts i
ts T
u ðt  sÞ ¼ b
b d 1 ; . . .; b
d nþ1 . Let bu ðt  sÞ be the infor-
mation of resource usage patterns at the time t-s and s be
the seasonal period of the time series. We assume that s
value is informed by experts as prior. The parameter set {ati
and bti will be denoted as consequent propositions for
each fuzzy rule and must be identified. The determination
Layer 3. We update consequent parameters by the
recursive least square algorithm with a variable forgetting
factor (WRLS-VFF) proposed by [30]. WRLS-VFF is an
improved version of the recursive least square (RLS)
method with better performance on tracking sudden system
changes. WRLS-VFF has an optimal dynamic forgetting
factor obtained from minimizing the mean-square noise-
free posterior error and usually has better performance in
both stationary and non-stationary environments [30].
Moreover, WRLS-VFF minimizes the error functions.
Therefore, we use WRLS-VFF in this paper. For more
information, refer to [30].
Layer 4. In this layer, the outputs of NFTS and AR
produce separately. The output is estimated in two ways:
NFTS and AR, which are calculated by Eqs. 31 and 32.
123
 Cluster Computing



X
R ... dt ¼ X~0 ðt  1Þnull
XðtÞ NFTS
¼ kti d t ð31Þ
i ¼ X~ ðt  1Þ. . .; X~0 ðt  1Þ. . .X~n0 ðt  1Þ; null
i¼1
X
n After, layer 2 runs normally, as well as layers 3 of
XðtÞAR ¼ uti vti ð32Þ
i¼1
The parameter set { uti will be denoted as consequent
propositions for each fuzzy rule and be identified uniform
distribution from the interval (0, 1).
Layer 5. The last layer calculates the output of NFTSAR
(Eq. 33) which is a composition of the vectors X NFTS ðtÞ and
X AR ðtÞ.
X 0 ðtÞ ¼ vNFTS
t X ðtÞNFTS þ vAR
t X ðt Þ
AR
ð33Þ
Then, the new time series is rebuilt using the final out-
puts obtained by Eq. 33 in time t. We use the uniform
distribution from the interval (0, 1) to generate values of
vt NFTS and vt AR in order to simplicity. Since we standardize
the original data at the first layer, therefore it needs to
convert the output into the original data range using
Eqs. 17 and 18. Thus, the final outputs in original range
X 0 ðtÞ are:
X~0 ðtÞ ¼ Xj0 ðtÞdtj þ mtj ; j ¼ 1; . . .; n ð34Þ
In the end, the output of NFTSAR at instant t is com-
puted as:
X can be obtained from their github [15]. Information of
X~0 ðtÞ ¼ j
1n X~j0 ðtÞ ð35Þ
3.4 The training and predicting stages
An ANN is characterized based upon structure (how neu-
rons are connected to each other), training method (how
weights between connected neurons are determined), and
transfer function [95]. Training of NNs means determining
the parameters in its structure. In this paper, we run these
two stages, training and predicting, like as [13]. In this
way, if the time series is available, the proposed method-
ology is trained and it adds or removes fuzzy rules to
perform the mapping between the hidden components data
at time t-1 and one step ahead of time series data at time t.
On the other hand, the predicting stage works when
there is not available data X(t). In this time, the NFTSAR
does not evolve and the fuzzy rules are not updated. It
means the structure of NFTSAR is fixed during the pre-
dicting stage. So, the recursive two-phase decomposition
phase does not run because there is not available data X(t) to
extract the hidden components. To identify the hidden
patterns and build the data stream dt, the final outputs
X~0 ðt  1ÞÞ computed in the previous time is feedback to its
input, then:
123
 0
ð36Þ
NFTSAR. Time series is computed based on hidden com-
ponents decomposition to create future resource usage data
of host. Then, this resource usage data standardizes.
4 Performance evaluation
In the following section, we describe the CPU data models
used to train and test out proposed RSA–NFTSAR and also
describe metrics that are used to determine the accuracy of
the proposed method for predicting CPU usage.
4.1 Experimental setup
Before proceeding further, let us introduce the experi-
mental setup used in the rest of this paper. We used Matlab
r2015 for simulations. For performance evaluation, we use
the real VMs workload traces generated by the PlanetLab
files. These files include the CPU and memory utilization
values of more than a thousand VMs every 5 min in a
period of 24 h. There are10 folders, each folder contains
between 898 to 1516 files. The PlanetLab data trace files
these VMs is gathered from 500 hosts around the world
[12]. In this paper, we consider the CPU values from these
data sets. We chose 10 days from the workload traces
collected during March and April 2011. The characteristics
of the VMs and their resource utilization in the PlanetLab
traces are presented in Table 2.
We divide the PlanetLab files into three data sets. The
first one is related to the training data which contained
2296 CPU values. The second one is used to test the
NFTSAR after the training phase which contained 288
CPU values. These two data sets are a part of the same
host. However, the third data set is used to also test the
NFTSAR. The third data set has come from a different host
contained 2296 CPU values. We use two test data sets from
two different hosts in order to the generality and adapt-
ability of the NNs.
4.2 Performance metrics
There are many metrics to measure the performance and
validate the precision accuracy of each model. We use
three statistical indicators, mean absolute percentage error
(MAPE), mean absolute error (MAE), and root mean
square error (RMSE) which are explained in Eqs. 37, 38
and 39. We also compare the proposed model with six
other models previously proposed for cloud workload
Cluster Computing
prediction purposes [15, 48, 64, 66, 80, 81]. We choose
these papers because they are most match with our problem
and three samples of the latest prediction models.
h   proposed method is lower than 0.5 s. We also show the
1X  Pi;c  Pi;m 
MAPE ¼  100 ð37Þ
h i¼1  Pi;m 
1X h  
Pi;c  Pi;m 
MAE ¼ ð38Þ
h i¼1
rffiffiffi h
1X 2
RMSE ¼ Pi;c  Pi;m ð39Þ
h i¼1
where Pi,c is the ith predicted value and is the ith measured
data. Let Pi,c,avg and Pi,m,avg be the mean of the pre-
dicted, and measured values and h be the total number of
observed data. The RMSE value denotes the accuracy of
models by comparing the differences between estimated
and actual observed values. The MAPE refers to the
accuracy of the prediction deviation of the model where
MAE represents the absolute errors between predicted and
measured data. The smaller RMSE, MAPE, MAE values
show a better performance model [32].
4.3 Parameter settings
In this subsection, we evaluate the characteristics of the
proposed method. Variation of some parameters considered
in Sect. 3.2 can affect the results such as the initial amount
of time series samples W, a dimension of lagged vectors in
the SSA method L and number of hidden components n. In
the following, we try to select suitable values for these
three parameters.
To set the value of other parameters, we split the
training set into three time-series, namely TS1, TS2, and
TS3. The interval of utilization measurements is 5 min
with seasonality 12. This seasonal period determines that
the resource usage pattern repeats every 12 time-series
samples. We consider one of three time-series commented
previously to evaluate these parameters. The predicting
horizon is adopted: h = 12 .
Techniques are compared according to the described
performance metrics in Sect. 4.2. The comparison results
are shown in Table 3. As shown in Table 3, the NFTSAR
has lower error values in these experiments. So, it can be
concluded that NFTSAR presents the best performance
than three other approaches. Table 4 shows the values of
effectiveness parameters (W,L,n), the number of data
clouds (R) and the running time (in sec.) in the three time
Table 2 Characteristics of the
Date
considered workload traces
10 days March–April 2011
series experiments. As time is very important in hourly
time series, we investigate the running time of our
approach. As shown in Table 4, the running time of our
running time of six other approaches
[15, 48, 64, 66, 80, 81] in Table 9 of Sect. 4.5.
4.4 Decomposing of CPU utilization time series
using RSA method
How the workload is entered is a non-stationary problem in
nature [96, 97]. So, the problem leads to poor generaliza-
tion and undesirable in performance of CPU utilization
prediction because they impose a number of pseudo-vari-
ation requirements on the model and affect the correct
understanding of data variations. For this, a two-phased
decomposition method, RSA, is proposed to simplify the
predicting task in this paper. The results of the RSA
method are demonstrated in Figs. 4 and 5. As explained
before, RSA is run in two phases, SSA and AFEEMD. At
the first phase, SSA was used to decompose the time series
into four different components. Figure 4 shows the four
components produced by the SSA for CPU utilization.
After extracting the hidden components and de-noising
by the SSA method, the second phase will be started to
refine the time series again and detect the trend components
of the extracted time series by the SSA method. By
employing the AFEEMD technique, the original CPU uti-
lization time series is decomposed into several independent
IMFs and one residue, respectively. The results are illus-
trated in Fig. 5. As shown in Fig. 5, the time series is
decomposed into four independent IMF components, and
one residue component, respectively. The IMFs are sorted
from the highest frequency to the lowest frequency.
As shown in Fig. 5, the original sequence can be clas-
sified into two categories. The low-frequency components
represent the trend of the original data, and the high-fre-
quency components reflect the variation of the original
data. The variations may result from some vague factors.
For example, IMF1–IMF4 are the IMF components from
high frequency to low frequency and Residue is the lowest-
frequency component. The Residue component shows the
overall trend of CPU utilization, which firstly increases and
finally keeps steady on the whole. IMF3–IMF4 indicate the
explicit fluctuation of the original sequence. The high-
frequency IMF1–IMF2 reflect the variation of the original
sequence affected by other random factors. Hence, a sig-
nificant improvement of the computational efficiency can
VMs Res Mean (%) SD (%) Median
1473 CPU 19.77 14.55 15
123
 Cluster Computing

Table 3 Quantitative comparison of the techniques by criteria decomposition algorithms such as AFEEMD, EEMD, SSA
Time series TS1 TS2 TS3
and WD. At first, we evaluate our proposed method,
NFTSAR without applying the two-phase decomposition
ENN method in three steps ahead (as shown in Table 5).
MAPE (%) 1.1458 1.8045 1.2151 The error evaluation results of different decomposition
MAE 0.1714 0.2146 0.162 methods in multi-step prediction are displayed in Table 6
RMSE 0.8766 0.5162 0.3907 and Fig. 4. Considering the results of Tables 5 and 6, it can
MPHW be said that all the decomposition-based models (Table 6)
MAPE (%) 0.9306 1.0547 0.8795 perform better than the single model (Table 5) in multi-step
MAE 0.1721 0.2085 0.1532 prediction. For example, compared with single NFTSAR,
RMSE 0.2917 0.3246 0.2231 the MAPE indexes of EEMD, WD, AFEEMD, SSA and
LSTM RSA decline from 1.4115 to 1.0348%, 1.0324%, 1.011%,
MAPE (%) 1.1765 1.6192 1.1656 0.8354% and 0.5462% in 1-step prediction, respectively. It
MAE 0.2289 0.3014 0.1752 can be found that the predicting difficulty will be decreased
RMSE 0.3312 0.3528 0.3091 greatly since the data time series can be decomposed into
SGW-SCN steadier modes using the decomposition methods. More-
MAPE (%) 1.0367 1.3274 1.2094 over, we observe that the RSA–NFTSAR has the best
MAE 0.1699 0.2118 0.1723 accuracy among the other decomposition-based models.
RMSE 0.3904 0.4129 0.3416 We can conclude that de-noising and selecting parameters
SDBFNN accurately can lead to improve the performance of
MAPE (%) 0.6067 0.7288 0.6146 prediction.
MAE 0.1606 0.1914 0.1482 From Table 6 and Fig. 6, it is evident that the SSA-
RMSE 0.2108 0.2676 0.2083 based model obtains better prediction accuracy than the
TL-GDBN
other single decomposition methods. For this, we apply the
MAPE (%) 0.6251 0.7547 0.6318
SSA method to decompose the resource usage series in the
MAE 0.1672 0.2053 0.1498
first step of RSA. On the other hand, by comparing RSA–
NFTSAR with SSA–NFTSAR, MAE promoted percent-
RMSE 0.2401 0.2721 0.2199
ages of RSA–NFTSAR are 36.11%, 60.63% and 27.82% in
NFTSAR
1-step, 2-step, and 3-step prediction. These results
MAPE (%) 0.5842 0.6021 0.5548
demonstrate that AFEEMD as secondary decomposition
MAE 0.1564 0.1758 0.1248
can improve prediction precision. Moreover, increasing the
RMSE 0.2051 0.2410 0.1843
MAPE, MAE and RMSE values of all the models in the
multi-step predictions indicates that the prediction errors of
each step would be added to next steps.

Table 4 Parameter values for each time series 4.6 Comparison of different prediction
Time W L n rjNþ1 f R Time approaches
series (s)

TS1 13 5 5 0.00232 0.5 6 0.37

To show the effectiveness of our proposed approach, we
compare our prediction approach with six other approaches
TS2 21 3 3 0.00014 0.5 5 0.25
[15, 48, 64, 66, 80, 81] in multiple time steps ahead. The
TS3 14 6 6 0.00005 0.5 3 0.22
aim of the multiple time steps ahead prediction experiment
is to evaluate how far into the future the RNN could
accurately predict CPU usage of a host and to determine by
how much does predictions decrease the further into the
be achieved by using the proposed two-phased decompo- future the network attempts to predict [19]. We predict the
sition method, RSA. CPU usage of a host from one to six-time steps into the
future in the experiment. Each time step takes 5 min.
4.5 Comparison of different decomposition Totally, CPU usage prediction takes 30 min into the future
algorithms by considering six-time steps.
The prediction accuracy on the training and testing data
In this subsection, we compare the performance of the sets at each of the six-time steps are presented in Tables 7
proposed decomposition method with four other popular and 8. As shown in tables, performance metrics are

123
Cluster Computing

Fig. 4 The four components obtained from the SSA method

Table 5 The multi-step predicting error evaluation results of the

single NFTSAR model without applying the two-phase decomposi-
tion method
Index 1-Step 2-Step 3-Step

MAPE (%) 1.4115 1.5462 1.7854

MAE 0.3033 0.3574 0.3761
RMSE 0.3316 0.3649 0.4025

time series into a simpler time series. It is noted that

Fig. 5 The decomposed results derived by AFEEMD method for the
CPU utilization time series
increased linearly in the prediction error. According to
results, it can be concluded that our approach predicts
future resource usage accurately compared with the other
six approaches. This is because our approach not only uses
rule base inference system but also decomposes original
SDBFNN and TL-GDBN have almost 1-step prediction
results near to our proposed approach but the prediction
errors of these approaches increase when the prediction is
done at multi-steps-ahead. In the six compared approaches,
TL-GDBN and SDBFNN have lower prediction errors
rather than other approaches. This is because that SDBFNN
uses a decomposition method to de-noise the original series
and TL-GDBN uses the TL approach to transfer the
knowledge from the learned weight parameters to newly
added neurons and hidden layers, which can achieve a
growing structure until the stopping criterion for pretrain-
ing was satisfied.
In Table 9, we also evaluate the training time and testing
time of the proposed CPU utilization prediction model. It is
observed that the computational time of training and test

123
 Cluster Computing

Table 6 The error evaluation results of different decomposition changes at time step 14 (Fig. 7a), the MAE accuracy of
algorithms in multi-step predicting RSA–NFTSAR decreases at the same time (Fig. 7b).
Index 1-Step 2-Step 3-Step 1-Step 2-Step 3-Step However, results show that the RSA–NFTSAR performs
well at multi-steps ahead into the future.
EEMD-NFTSAR AFEEMD-NFTSAR
For real applications, the convergent result guarantees
MAPE (%) 1.0324 1.5008 1.7045 1.011 1.2836 1.4247 the deterministic convergent behavior from a theoretical
MAE 0.1218 0.1684 0.2005 0.0971 0.1202 0.1427 point of view [96]. So, we mainly present the convergent
RMSE 0.1486 0.1903 0.2152 0.1407 0.1721 0.1929 result of the proposed model in Fig. 8. With regard to the
SSA-NFTSAR WD-NFTSAR low RMSE of RSA–NFTSAR compared to six other
MAPE (%) 0.8354 0.8936 0.9794 1.0348 1.5104 1.7435 approaches, it can be easily shown that the convergence of
MAE 0.0706 0.0816 0.0981 0.1472 0.1693 0.2098 RSA–NFTSAR occurs at a much faster rate than six other
RMSE 0.0997 0.1281 0.1532 0.1594 0.2061 0.2198 approaches in training mode.
RSA–NFTSAR In Table 10, we show the improvement percentages of
MAPE (%) 0.5462 0.6003 0.6702 the comparison models by RSA–NFTSAR. In accordance
MAE 0.0451 0.0566 0.0708 with the results, it can be summarized as follows:
RMSE 0.0608 0.0694 0.0932
1. As shown in the experiments, the RSA–NFTSAR has
better prediction accuracy and performance than the
comparison models in the experiment. So, we can
conclude that it has satisfactory prediction accuracy.
step are shorter than 3 s. This leads to makes this method 2. The prediction results of the RSA–NFTSAR model are
suitable for resource usage prediction. The models need to better than those of the ENN model. For example,
be retrained after a certain period, we choose half-hour as compared to the ENN model, the MAPE of the
the time interval for retraining the predicting models. The proposed model are reduced by 38.59%, 38.12%,
results demonstrate that the computational time of the 35.13%, 41.32%, 44.45% and 45.16%, respectively;
proposed method is reasonable. the MAE of the proposed model are reduced by
Figure 7a shows the results of prediction by the LSTM, 38.02%, 39.06%, 38.10%, 46.20%, 50.95% and
MPHW and RSA–NFTSAR algorithms. The RSA– 44.57%, respectively; and the RMSE of the proposed
NFTSAR algorithm performs similarly in trend when model are reduced by 53.51%, 50.50%, 49.96%,
compared with the actual CPU data-set. Figure 7b shows 43.53%, 44.07% and 34.10%, respectively.
the MAE for both 1-time-step-ahead and 6-time-steps- 3. The prediction results of the RSA–NFTSAR model are
ahead for the RSA–NFTSAR algorithm on the test data. better than those of the MPHW model. For instance, in
The prediction errors of the RSA–NFTSAR algorithm experiment, compared to the MPHW model, the
increase when the prediction is done at 6-time-steps-ahead MAPE of the proposed model are reduced by
(as shown in Fig. 7b). When CPU utilization suddenly

Fig. 6 The multi-step error evaluation of different decomposition algorithms

123
Cluster Computing

Table 7 Multiple steps ahead

Approach Index 1-Step 2-Step 3-Step 4-Step 5-Step 6-Step
trained data prediction accuracy
ENN MAPE (%) 0.3796 0.4173 0.6989 0.8676 1.0185 1.4229
MAE 0.0478 0.0589 0.0702 0.1176 0.1392 0.1609
RMSE 0.0832 0.1178 0.1245 0.1426 0.1502 0.1775
MPHW MAPE (%) 0.3756 0.4152 0.6791 0.7895 0.9447 1.3525
MAE 0.0472 0.0597 0.0725 0.1214 0.1364 0.1592
RMSE 0.0814 0.1107 0.1179 0.1264 0.1307 0.1572
LSTM MAPE (%) 0.3554 0.3894 0.6574 0.7145 0.8685 1.2354
MAE 0.0412 0.0518 0.0597 0.0982 0.1109 0.1316
RMSE 0.0612 0.0846 0.1042 0.1084 0.1124 0.1313
SGW-SCN MAPE (%) 0.3517 0.4041 0.6747 0.7987 1.0341 1.4674
MAE 0.0435 0.0523 0.0816 0.1098 0.1646 0.1738
RMSE 0.0754 0.1132 0.1438 0.1662 0.1554 0.1689
SDBFNN MAPE (%) 0.3329 0.3669 0.4934 0.6064 0.7167 0.8975
MAE 0.0411 0.0478 0.0513 0.0852 0.0834 0.1267
RMSE 0.0481 0.0639 0.0855 0.0929 0.1159 0.1479
TL-GDBN MAPE (%) 0.3511 0.3741 0.5874 0.7015 0.8236 1.0697
MAE 0.0367 0.0496 0.0616 0.0951 0.1497 0.1424
RMSE 0.0521 0.0784 0.0911 0.1024 0.1336 0.1591
RSA–NFSTAR MAPE (%) 0.279 0.2989 0.4178 0.4901 0.5658 0.7415
MAE 0.0295 0.0361 0.0395 0.0647 0.0716 0.0817
RMSE 0.0416 0.0592 0.0672 0.0781 0.0834 0.1008

Table 8 Multiple steps ahead

Approach Index 1-Step 2-Step 3-Step 4-Step 5-Step 6-Step
test data prediction accuracy
ENN MAPE (%) 0.3211 0.3843 0.548 0.7278 0.8926 1.2085
MAE 0.0405 0.0489 0.0601 0.1067 0.1311 0.1454
RMSE 0.0854 0.0997 0.1177 0.1314 0.1417 0.156
MPHW MAPE (%) 0.3124 0.3741 0.5421 0.6925 0.8301 1.0841
MAE 0.0393 0.0478 0.0582 0.1004 0.1149 0.1378
RMSE 0.0617 0.0807 0.0987 0.1231 0.1397 0.1607
LSTM MAPE (%) 0.2447 0.3024 0.4474 0.5675 0.6815 0.9167
MAE 0.0304 0.0399 0.0503 0.0845 0.0975 0.1114
RMSE 0.0512 0.0692 0.0849 0.0964 0.119 0.1329
SGW-SCN MAPE (%) 0.2642 0.3468 0.5649 0.7142 0.8197 1.2134
MAE 0.0324 0.0443 0.0686 0.1034 0.1135 0.1581
RMSE 0.0561 0.0765 0.1075 0.1297 0.1296 0.1792
SDBFNN MAPE (%) 0.2384 0.2903 0.4454 0.5775 0.6687 0.9168
MAE 0.0296 0.0376 0.0457 0.0737 0.0805 0.1183
RMSE 0.0481 0.0594 0.0761 0.0925 0.1063 0.1408
TL-GDBN MAPE (%) 0.2522 0.3189 0.4947 0.6286 0.7241 0.9934
MAE 0.0316 0.0389 0.0476 0.0798 0.0994 0.1202
RMSE 0.0504 0.0642 0.0811 0.0929 0.1221 0.1494
RSA–NFSTAR MAPE (%) 0.1972 0.2378 0.3555 0.4271 0.4958 0.6628
MAE 0.0251 0.0298 0.0372 0.0574 0.0643 0.0806
RMSE 0.0397 0.0494 0.0589 0.0742 0.0835 0.1028

36.88%, 36.43%, 34.42%, 38.32%, 40.27% and 44.04% and 41.51%, respectively; and the RMSE of
38.86%, respectively; the MAE of the proposed model the proposed model are reduced by 35.66%, 38.79%,
are reduced by 36.13%, 37.66%, 36.08%, 42.83%, 40.32%, 39.72%, 40.23%, and 36.03%, respectively.

123
 Cluster Computing

Table 9 Comparison of different models on training and testing time the MAE of the proposed model are reduced by
Approach Training time (s) Testing time (s)
17.43%, 25.31%, 26.04%, 32.07%, 34.05%, and
27.65%, respectively; and the RMSE of the proposed
ENN 1.9530 0.5645 model are reduced by 22.46%, 28.61%, 30.62%,
MPHW 2.0352 0.7164 23.03%, 29.83%, and 22.65%, respectively.
LSTM 1.6639 0.5940 5. The prediction results of the RSA–NFTSAR model are
SGW-SCN 2.0024 0.6484 better than those of the SGW–SCN model. For
SDBFNN 0.8347 0.2982 instance, in experiment, compared to the SGW-–CN
TL-GDBN 1.6028 0.4212 model, the MAPE of the proposed model are reduced
RSA–NFSTAR 0.8124 0.2741 by 25.36%, 31.43%, 37.07%, 40.20%, 39.51%, and
45.38%, respectively; the MAE of the proposed model
are reduced by 22.53%, 32.73%, 45.77%, 44.49%,
43.35%, and 49.02%, respectively; and the RMSE of
4. The prediction results of the RSA–NFTSAR model are the proposed model are reduced by 29.23%, 35.42%,
better than those of the LSTM model. For instance, in 45.21%, 42.79%, 35.57%, and 42.63%, respectively.
experiment, compared to the LSTM model, the MAPE 6. The prediction results of the RSA–NFTSAR model are
of the proposed model are reduced by 19.41%, 21.36%, better than those of the SDBFNN model. For instance,
20.54%, 24.74%, 27.25%, and 27.70%, respectively; in experiment, compared to the SDBFNN model, the

Fig. 7 Predictive performance of back-propagation through LSTM, MPHW and RSA–NFTSAR with MAE for one and six time steps: a Actual,
LSTM, MPHW and RSA–NFTSAR CPU values b MAE for one and six time steps

123
Cluster Computing

Fig. 8 Convergence
performance of RSA–NFTSAR
along with iteration NO

Table 10 Improvement
Approach Index 1-Step 2-Step 3-Step 4-Step 5-Step 6-Step
percentages of the comparison
models by RSA–NFTSAR ENN pMAPE (%) 38.59 38.12 35.13 41.32 44.45 45.16
model
pMAE (%) 38.02 39.06 38.10 46.20 50.95 44.57
pRMSE (%) 53.51 50.45 49.96 43.53 41.07 34.10
MPHW pMAPE (%) 36.88 36.43 34.42 38.32 40.27 38.86
pMAE (%) 36.13 37.66 36.08 42.83 44.04 41.51
pRMSE (%) 35.66 38.79 40.32 39.72 40.23 36.03
LSTM pMAPE (%) 19.41 21.36 20.54 24.74 27.25 27.70
pMAE (%) 17.43 25.31 26.04 32.07 34.05 27.65
pRMSE (%) 22.46 28.61 30.62 23.03 29.83 22.65
SGW-SCN pMAPE (%) 25.36 31.43 37.07 40.20 39.51 45.38
pMAE (%) 22.53 32.73 45.77 44.49 43.35 49.02
pRMSE (%) 29.23 35.42 45.21 42.79 35.57 42.63
SDBFNN pMAPE (%) 17.28 18.08 20.18 26.04 25.86 27.71
pMAE (%) 15.20 20.74 18.60 22.12 20.12 31.87
pRMSE (%) 17.46 16.84 22.60 19.78 21.45 26.99
TL-GDBN pMAPE (%) 21.81 25.43 28.14 32.06 31.53 33.28
pMAE (%) 20.57 23.39 21.85 28.07 35.31 32.95
pRMSE (%) 21.23 23.05 27.37 20.13 31.61 31.19

MAPE of the proposed model are reduced by 17.28%, respectively; the MAE of the proposed model are
18.08%, 20.18%, 26.04%, 25.86%, and 27.71%, reduced by 20.57%, 23.39%, 21.85%, 28.07%,
respectively; the MAE of the proposed model are 35.31%, and 32.95%, respectively; and the RMSE of
reduced by 15.20%, 20.74%, 18.60%, 22.12%, the proposed model are reduced by 21.23%, 23.05%,
20.12%, and 31.87%, respectively; and the RMSE of 27.37%, 20.13%, 31.61%, and 31.19%, respectively.
the proposed model are reduced by 17.46%, 16.84%,
To show the strength of our proposed method, we
22.60%, 19.78%, 21.45%, and 26.99%, respectively.
compare the error trend lines (RMSE) of RSA–NFTSAR
7. The prediction results of the RSA–NFTSAR model are
with NFTSAR and six other approaches
better than those of the TL-GDBN model. For instance,
[15, 48, 64, 66, 80, 81]. In this experiment, only the number
in experiment, compared to the TL-GDBN model, the
of inputs varies. 100 data samples of dataset are selected
MAPE of the proposed model are reduced by 21.81%,
randomly. The results are observed in Fig. 9. It is showed
25.43%, 28.14%, 32.06%, 31.53%, and 33.28%,
that RSA–NFTSAR has lower RMSE value than other

123

methods for locations with fewer data samples. On the
other hand, when the number of samples of a dataset
grows, RMSE of RSA–NFTSAR is decreased. It is because
that RSA–NFTSAR decomposes the original dataset and
removes the noise. The figure shows that building a new
model needed a least 40 samples to obtain an accept-
able prediction accuracy. Moreover, it can be recognized
that the proposed decomposition method, RSA, leads to a
slight improvement of the error trend line, compared to the
case when no decomposition is performed. It is very clear
that the RSA–NFTSAR provides better results than six
other approaches, because this model has been tested on
data extracted from them. Although SDBFNN also
decomposes the original series, it has a higher error than
our proposed method. It is because that SDBFNN is cap-
able to split the series into two hidden components. So,
SDBFNN may have worse prediction values in noisy
environments with different trends. However, the key dif-
ference is that RSA–NFTSAR uses only a smaller fraction
of all available predictors and hence drastically reduces the
computational complexity and training time of a NN
model.
5 Conclusion and future works
Driven by such factors as cyclic and seasonality, resource
usage series present corresponding data characteristics,
resulting in inferential and computational complexity for
developing an effective prediction model, which cannot
generate favorable prediction results. According to the
‘‘divide and conquer’’ idea and identifying simpler pat-
terns, an effective alternative to overcome this problem is
to capture these data characteristics and then employ pre-
diction techniques for forecasting purposes [85].
In this paper, we present an adaptive resource usage
prediction model that is designed based on a two-phase
decomposition method and hybrid NFTS network.
According to the characteristics of resource usage data, the
Fig. 9 Impact of the number of data samples on RMSE for RSA–
NFTSAR, NFTSAR and other six approaches
123
Cluster Computing
proposed RSA-based decomposition strategy can decom-
pose the resource usage series into several meaningful
modes. These interpretable modes represent hourly
resource usage trend changes. Thus, the decomposition
strategy can make a significant reduction in heavy analyses
for identifying and extracting meaningful components in
the predictions. On the other hand, it can help the NFTS
network to identify its structure and predict future resource
usage accurately.
In addition, the proposed method achieved good pre-
dicting results for seasonal resource usage series compared
with other approaches [15, 48, 64, 66, 80, 81]. We also
found that extracting the hidden components of seasonal
timeseries can lead to more accurate predictions. Accord-
ing to the results, we can summarize that: (a) The proposed
model has good prediction accuracy and generalization
performance in short-term multi-step resource usage pre-
dicting. (b) The proposed model can have significantly
better performance than the three comparison models from
1-step to 6-step CPU usage predictions with the MAPE of
33.83% average performance promotion, MAE of 36.54%
average performance promotion, RMSE of 36.70% average
performance promotion.
For the future work, we aim to present a simple heuristic
to place time sensitive VMs on active hosts based on
prediction results of our methodology. We should show
that the proposed methodology can be effective on time
sensitive VM placement policy and reduce the energy cost
of cloud components in cloud computing.
References
1. Chen, J., Wang, Y.: A Resource demand prediction method based
on EEMD in cloud computing. Int. Congress Inform. Commun.
Technol. 131, 116–123 (2018)
2. Raagaard, M.L., Pop, P., Gutierrez, M., Steiner, W.: Runtime
reconfiguration of time-sensitive networking schedules for fog
computing. IEEE Fog World Congress (2017). https://doi.org/10.
1109/FWC.2017.8368523
3. Balaji, M., Kumar, C.A., Rao, G.S.V.R.K.: Predictive cloud
resource management framework for enterprise workloads.
J. King Saud Univ. Comput. Inform. Sci. 30, 404–415 (2018)
4. Nayak, S.C., Parida, S., Tripathy, C., Pattnaik, P.K.: An enhanced
deadline constraint based task scheduling mechanism for cloud
environment. J. King Saud Univ. Comput. Inform. (2018). https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jksuci.2018.10.009
5. Nayak, S.C., Tripathy, C.: Deadline sensitive lease scheduling in
cloud computing environment using AHP. J. King Saud Univ.
Comput. Inform. 30, 152–163 (2018)
6. Khabbaz, M., Assi, C.: Modelling and analysis of a novel dead-
line-aware scheduling scheme for cloud computing data centers.
IEEE Trans. Cloud Comput. 6, 141–155 (2015)
7. Chen, C.H., Lin, G.W., Kuo, S.Y.: MapReduce scheduling for
deadline-constrained jobs in heterogeneous cloud computing
systems. IEEE Trans. Cloud Comput. (2015). https://doi.org/10.
1109/TCC.2015.2474403
Cluster Computing
8. Li, Z., Ge, J., Hu, H., Song, W., Hu, H., Luo, B.: Cost and energy
aware scheduling algorithm for scientific workflows with dead-
line constraint in clouds. IEEE Trans. Serv. Comput. (2015).
https://doi.org/10.1109/TSC.2015.2466545
9. Ji, S., Liu, S., Li, B.: Deadline-aware scheduling and routing for
inter-datacenter multicast transfers. IEEE Int. Conf. Cloud Eng.
(2018). https://doi.org/10.1109/IC2E.2018.00035
10. Shishido, H.Y., Estrella, J.C., Toledo, C.F.M., Arantes, M.S.:
Genetic-based algorithms applied to a workflow scheduling
algorithm with security and deadline constraints in clouds.
Comput. Electr. Eng. (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compelec
eng.2017.12.004
11. Garg, N., Goraya, M.S.: Task deadline-aware energy-efficient
scheduling model for a virtualized cloud. Arab J. Sci. Eng.
(2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13369-017-2779-5
12. Rahmanian, A.A., Ghobaei-Arani, M., Tofighy, S.: A learning
automata-based ensemble resource usage prediction algorithm for
cloud computing environment. Future Gener. Comput. Syst.
(2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2017.09.049
13. Rodrigues Junior, S.E., Serra, G.L.O.: A novel intelligent
approach for state space evolving forecasting of seasonal time
series. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 64, 272–285 (2017)
14. Abdollahzade, M., Miranian, A., Hassani, H., Iranmanesh, H.: A
new hybrid enhanced local linear neuro-fuzzy model based on the
optimized singular spectrum analysis and its application for
nonlinear and chaotic time series forecasting. Inform. Sci. (2014).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2014.09.002
15. Mason, K., Duggan, M., Barrett, E., Duggan, J., Howley, E.:
Predicting host CPU utilization in the cloud using evolutionary
neural Networks. Future Gener. Comput. Syst. (2018). https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.future.2018.03.040
16. Kumar, J., Singh, A.K.: Workload prediction in cloud using
artificial neural network and adaptive differential evolution.
Future Gener. Comput. Syst. (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
future.2017.10.047
17. Gao, C., Sun, H., Wang, T., Tang, M., Bohnen, N.I., Müller,
M.L., Herman, T., Giladi, N., Kalinin, A., Spino, C.: Model-
based and model-free machine learning techniques for diagnostic
prediction and classification of clinical outcomes in Parkinson’s
disease. Sci. Rep 8(1), 1–21 (2018)
18. Zhou, F., Zhou, H.-M., Yang, Z., Yang, L.: EMD2FNN: A
strategy combining empirical mode decomposition and factor-
ization machine based neural network for stock market trend
prediction. Exp. Syst. Appl. 115, 136–151 (2019)
19. Amiri, M., Khanli, L.M., Mirandolab, R.: A sequential pattern
mining model for application workload prediction in cloud
environment. J. Netw. Comput. Appl. 105, 21–62 (2018)
20. Kim, K.-J.: Financial time series forecasting using support vector
machines. Neurocomputing 55(1–2), 307–319 (2003)
21. Qian, X.-Y.: Financial series prediction: Comparison between
precision of time series models and machine learning methods.
arXiv preprint arXiv:1706.00948 (2017).
22. Kim, K.-J., Han, I.: Genetic algorithms approach to feature dis-
cretization in artificial neural networks for the prediction of stock
price index. Exp. Syst. Appl. 19(2), 125–132 (2000)
23. Trana, N., Nguyena, T., Nguyena, B.M., Nguyen, G.: A multi-
variate fuzzy time series resource forecast model for clouds using
LSTM and data correlation analysis. Int. Conf. Knowl. Based
Intell. Inform. Eng. Syst. 126, 636–645 (2018)
24. Kumara, J., Goomer, R., Singh, A.K.: Long short term memory
recurrent neural network (LSTM-RNN) based workload fore-
casting model for cloud datacenters. Int. Confer. Smart Comput.
Commun. 125, 676–682 (2018)
25. Ullrich, M., Lässig, J.: Current challenges and approaches for
resource demand estimation in the cloud. Int. Confer. Cloud
Comput. Big Dat. (2013). https://doi.org/10.1109/CLOUDCOM-
ASIA.2013.52
26. Lang, K., Zhang, M., Yuan, Y., Yue, X.: Short-term load fore-
casting based on multivariate time series prediction and weighted
neural network with random weights and kernels. Clust. Comput.
(2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10586-017-1685-7
27. Rather, A.M., Agarwal, A., Sastry, V.: Recurrent neural network
and a hybrid model for prediction of stock returns. Exp. Syst.
Appl. 42(6), 3234–3241 (2015)
28. Mason, K., Duggan, J., Howley, E.: A multi-objective neural
network trained with differential evolution for dynamic economic
emission dispatch. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 100, 201–221
(2018)
29. Yu, L., Wang, S., Lai, K.K.: Forecasting crude oil price with an
EMD-based neural network ensemble learning paradigm. Energy
Econ. 30, 2623–2635 (2008)
30. Ge, D., Zeng, X.J.: A self-evolving fuzzy system which learns
dynamic threshold parameter by itself. IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst.
(2018). https://doi.org/10.1109/TFUZZ.2018.2886154
31. Angelov, P.: Evolving Takagi–Sugeno fuzzy systems from
streaming data. In: Angelov, P., Filev, D., Kasabov, N. (eds.)
Evolving Intelligent Systems: Methodology and Applications,
pp. 21–50. IEEE Press Series on Computational Intelligence,
Wiley, Hoboken (2010)
32. Halabi, L.M., Mekhilef, S., Hossain, M.: Performance evaluation
of hybrid adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system models for
predicting monthly global solar radiation. Appl. Energy 213,
247–261 (2018)
33. Zhao, K., Li, S., Kang, Z.: Takagi-Sugeno fuzzy modeling and
control of nonlinear system with adaptive clustering algorithms.
Int. Conf. Modell. Identif. Control (ICMIC) (2018). https://doi.
org/10.1109/ICMIC.2018.8530000
34. Rezaee, B., Fazel Zarandi, M.H.: Data-driven fuzzy modeling for
Takagi–Sugeno–Kang fuzzy system. Inform. Sci. 180, 241–255
(2010)
35. Vieira, R., Gomide, F., Ballini, R.: Kernel evolving participatory
fuzzy modeling for time series forecasting. IEEE Int. Conf. Fuzzy
Syst. (2018). https://doi.org/10.1109/FUZZ-IEEE.2018.8491484
36. Boroojenia, K.G., Hadi Amini, M., Bahramif, S., Iyengara, S.S.,
Sarwatg, A.I., Karabasoglu, O.: A novel multi-time-scale mod-
eling for electric power demand forecasting: From short-term to
medium-term horizon. Electric Power Syst. Res. 142, 58–73
(2017)
37. Sarıca, B., Egrioglu, E., Asıkgil, B.: A new hybrid method for
time series forecasting: AR–ANFIS. Neural Comput Appl.
(2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-016-2475-5
38. Mi, X., Liu, H., Li, Y.: Wind speed prediction model using sin-
gular spectrum analysis, empirical mode decomposition and
convolutional support vector machine. Energy Conv. Manag.
180, 196–205 (2019)
39. Patel, J., Shah, S., Thakkar, P., Kotecha, K.: Predicting stock
market index using fusion of machine learning techniques. Expert
Syst. Appl. 42, 2162–2172 (2015)
40. Wang, J.-Z., Wang, J.-J., Zhang, Z.-G., Guo, S.-P.: Forecasting
stock indices with back propagation neural network. Expert Syst.
Appl. 38(11), 14346–14355 (2011)
41. Er, M.J., Deng, C.: Obstacle avoidance of a mobile robot using
hybrid learning approach. IEEE Trans. Indust. Electron. 52(3),
898–905 (2005)
42. Lin, F.-J., Huang, M.-S., Yeh, P.-Y., Tsai, H.-C., Kuan, C.-H.:
DSP-based probabilistic fuzzy neural network control for Li-ion
battery charger. IEEE Trans. Power Electron. 27(8), 3782–3794
(2012)
43. Lin, F.-J., Hung, Y.-C., Hwang, J.-C., Tsai, M.-T.: Fault-tolerant
control of a six-phase motor drive system using a Takagi–
Sugeno–Kang type fuzzy neural network with asymmetric
123

membership function. IEEE Trans. Power Electron. 28(7),
3557–3572 (2012)
44. Wang, Z., Zhang, Y., Fu, H.: Autoregressive prediction with
rolling mechanism for time series forecasting with small sample
size. Math. Probl. Eng. (2014). https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/
572173
45. Duggan, M., Duggan, J., Howley, E., Barrett, E.: A reinforcement
learning approach for the scheduling of live migration from under
utilised hosts. Memetic Comput. (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/
s12293-016-0218-x
46. Lin, F.-J., Lu, K.-C., Ke, T.-H., Yang, B.-H., Chang, Y.-R.:
Reactive power control of three-phase grid-connected PV system
during grid faults using Takagi–Sugeno–Kang probabilistic fuzzy
neural network control. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 62(9),
5516–5528 (2015)
47. Lin, C.J., Chin, C.C.: Prediction and identification using wavelet-
based recurrent fuzzy neural networks. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man
Cybernet. 34, 2144–2154 (2004)
48. Bi, J., Yuan, H., Zhang, L., Zhang, J.: SGW-SCN: An integrated
machine learning approach for workload forecasting in geo-dis-
tributed cloud data centers. Inform. Sci. 481, 57–68 (2019)
49. Nguyen, T.H., Di Francesco, M., Yla-Jaaski, M.: Virtual machine
consolidation with multiple usage prediction for energy-efficient
cloud data centers. IEEE Trans. Serv. Comput. (2016). https://doi.
org/10.1109/TSC.2017.2648791
50. Tang, X., Liao, X., Zheng, J., Yang, X.: Energy efficient job
scheduling with workload prediction on cloud data center. Clust.
Comput. (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10586-018-2154-7
51. Gupta, R.K., Pateriya, R.K.: Balance Resource Utilization (BRU)
Approach for the Dynamic Load Balancing in Cloud Environ-
ment by Using AR Prediction Model. Journal of Organizational
and End User Computing (2017). https://doi.org/10.4018/JOEUC.
2017100102
52. Tao, M., Dong, S., Zhang, L.: A multi-strategy collaborative
prediction model for the runtime of online tasks in computing
cluster/grid. Clust. Comput. (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10586-010-0145-4
53. Kecskemeti, G., Nemeth, Z., Kertesz, A., Ranjan, R.: Cloud
workload prediction based on workflow execution time discrep-
ancies. Clust. Comput. (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10586-
018-2849-9
54. Xu, C.Z., Rao, J., Bu, X.: URL: A unified reinforcement learning
approach for autonomic cloud management. J. Parallel Distrib.
Comput. 72(2), 95–105 (2012)
55. Amiri, M., Mohammad-Khanli, L.: Survey on prediction models
of applications for resources provisioning in Cloud. J. Netw.
Comput. Appl. 82, 93–113 (2017)
56. Thein, T., Myo, M.M., Parvin, S., Gawanmeh, A.: Reinforcement
learning based methodology for energy-efficient resource allo-
cation in cloud data centers. J. King Saud Univ. Comput. Inform.
Sci. (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jksuci.2018.11.005
57. Zheng, S., Zhu, G., Zhang, J., Feng, W.: Towards an adaptive
human-centric computing resource management framework
based on resource prediction and multi-objective genetic algo-
rithm. Multimed Tools Appl. (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11042-015-3096-1
58. Cioara, T., Anghel, I., Salomie, I.: Methodology for energy aware
adaptive management of virtualized data centers. Energy Effic.
(2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12053-016-9467-2
59. Ranjbari, M., Akbari Torkestani, J.: A learning automata-based
algorithm for energy and SLA efficient consolidation of virtual
machines in cloud data centers. J. Parallel Distrib. Comput.
(2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpdc.2017.10.009
60. Alireza Souri, A., Rahmani, A.M., Jafari Navimipour, N.: Formal
verification approaches in the web service composition: a
123
Cluster Computing
comprehensive analysis of the current challenges for future
research. Int. J. Commun. Syst. (2018). https://doi.org/10.1002/
dac.3808
61. Narendra, K.S., Thathachar, M.A.: Learning automata-a survey.
IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybernet. 4, 323–334 (1974)
62. Thathachar, M.A., Sastry, P.S.: Varieties of learning automata: an
overview. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybernet. Part B 32(6),
711–722 (2002)
63. Figueiredo, M.B., de Almeida, A., Ribeiro, B.: Wavelet decom-
position and singular spectrum analysis for electrical signal
denoising. In: 2011 IEEE International Conference on Systems,
Man, and Cybernetics 2011, pp. 3329–3334. IEEE
64. Jiang, H., Haihong, E., Song, M.: Multi-prediction based
scheduling for hybrid workloads in the cloud data center. Clust.
Comput. (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10586-018-2265-1
65. Hochreiter, S., Schmidhuber, J.: Long short-term memory. Neural
Comput. 9(8), 1735–1780 (1997)
66. Song, B., Yu, Y., Zhou, Y., Wang, Z., Du, S.: Host load pre-
diction with long short-term memory in cloud computing. J. Su-
percomput. (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11227-017-2044-4
67. Babu, K.R.R., Samuel, P.: Interference aware prediction mecha-
nism for auto scaling in cloud. Comput. Electr. Eng. (2017).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compeleceng.2017.12.021
68. Kumar, N., Patel, P.: Resource management using feed forward
ANN-PSO. Cloud Comput. Environ. (2016). https://doi.org/10.
1145/2905055.2905115
69. Witanto, J.N., Lim, H., Atiquzzaman, M.: Adaptive selection of
dynamic VM consolidation algorithm using neural network for
cloud resource management. Future Gener. Comput. Syst. (2018).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2018.04.075
70. Kaur, G., Bala, A., Chana, I.: An intelligent regressive ensemble
approach for predicting resource usage in cloud computing.
J. Parallel. Distrib. Comput. 123, 1–12 (2019)
71. Gill, S.S., Chana, I., Singh, M., Buyya, R.: CHOPPER: an
intelligent QoS-aware autonomic resource management approach
for cloud computing. Clust. Comput. (2018). https://doi.org/10.
1007/s10586-017-1040-z
72. Tofighy, S., Rahmanian, A.A., Ghobaei-Arani, M.: An ensemble
CPU load prediction algorithm using a Bayesian information
criterion and smooth filters in a cloud computing environment.
Softw. Pract. Exp. (2018). https://doi.org/10.1002/spe.2641
73. Manjula, C., Florence, L.: Deep neural network based hybrid
approach for software defect prediction using software metrics.
Clust. Comput. (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10586-018-1696-
z
74. Chen, Y., Yang, T.-J., Emer, J., Sze, V.: Understanding the
limitations of existing energy-efficient design approaches for
deep neural networks. Energy 2, 1–3 (2018)
75. Fei, X., Youfu, S., Xuejun, R.: A rough set data prediction
method based on neural network evaluation and least squares
fusion. Clust. Comput. (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10586-
018-2641-x
76. Zhang, W., Duan, P., Yang, L.T., Xia, F., Li, Z., Lu, Q., Gong,
W., Yang, S.: Resource requests prediction in the cloud com-
puting environment with a deep belief network. Softw. Pract.
Exp. (2016). https://doi.org/10.1002/spe.2426
77. Vohra, R., Goel, K., Sahoo, J.: Modeling temporal dependencies
in data using a DBN-LSTM. In: 2015 IEEE International Con-
ference on Data Science and Advanced Analytics (DSAA) 2015,
pp. 1–4. IEEE
78. Agarwalla, N., Panda, D., Modi, M.K.: Deep learning using
restricted boltzmann machines. Int. J. Comput. Sci. Inform.
Secur. 7(3), 1552–1556 (2016)
79. Muralitharan, K., Sakthivel, R., Vishnuvarthan, R.: Neural net-
work based optimization approach for energy demand prediction
Cluster Computing

in smart grid. Neurocomputing (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.

neucom.2017.08.017
80. Wang, G., Jia, Q.-S., Qiao, J., Bi, J., Liu, C.: A sparse deep belief Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
network with efficient fuzzy learning framework. Neural Netw. jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
121, 430–440 (2020)
81. Wang, G., Qiao, J., Bi, J., Li, W., Zhou, M.: Tl-gdbn: Growing
deep belief network with transfer learning. IEEE Trans. Automat. Seyedeh Yasaman Rashida re-
Sci. Eng. 16(2), 874–885 (2018) ceived the B.Sc. degree in soft-
82. Wang, L., Kunze, M., Tao, J.: Performance evaluation of virtual ware engineering from Azad
machine-based Grid workflow system. Concurr. Comput. Pract. University, Iran, in 2006, and
Exp. 20, 1759–1771 (2008) the M.Sc. in software engineer-
83. Zubaidi, S.L., Dooley, J., Alkhaddar, R.M., Abdellatif, M., Al- ing from Azad University, Arak
Bugharbee, H., Ortega-Martorell, S.: A novel approach for pre- Branch, Iran, in 2010. She is
dicting monthly water demand by combining singular spectrum currently pursuing the Ph.D.
analysis with neural networks. J. Hydrol. (2018). https://doi.org/ degree in computer engineering
10.1016/j.jhydrol.2018.03.047 at Science and Research
84. Nguyen, L., Novák, V.: Forecasting seasonal time series based on Branch, Islamic Azad Univer-
fuzzy techniques. Fuzzy Sets Syst. (2018). https://doi.org/10. sity, Iran. Her research interests
1016/j.fss.2018.09.010 include wireless networks, dis-
85. Zhang, X., Wang, J.: A novel decomposition-ensemble model for tributed computing systems,
forecasting short-term load-time series with multiple seasonal cloud computing. She is a fac-
patterns. Appl. Soft Comput. 65, 478–494 (2018) ulty member of Islamic Azad University of Iran.
86. Xiao, L., Qian, F., Shao, W.: Multi-step wind speed forecasting
based on a hybrid forecasting architecture and an improved bat Masoud Sabaei received his BSc
algorithm. Energy Conv. Manag. 143, 410–430 (2017) degree from Esfahan University
87. de Oliveira, J.F.L., Ludermir, T.B.: A hybrid evolutionary of Technology, Iran, and his
decomposition system for time series forecasting. Neurocom- MSc and PhD degrees from the
puting (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neucom.2015.07.113 Amirkabir University of Tech-
88. Xue, X., Zhou, J.Z., Xu, Y., Zhu, W., Li, C.: An adaptively fast nology (Tehran Polytechnic),
ensemble empirical mode decomposition method and its appli- Iran, all in the field of computer
cations to rolling element bearing fault diagnosis. Mech. Syst. engineering, in 1992, 1995, and
Signal Process. (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymssp.2015.03. 2000, respectively. Since 2002,
002 He has been a professor in the
89. Sahni, J., Vidyarthi, D.P.: A Cost-effective deadline-constrained Computer Engineering Depart-
dynamic scheduling algorithm for scientific workflows in a cloud ment, Amirkabir University of
environment. IEEE Trans. Cloud Comput. (2015). https://doi.org/ Technology. His research inter-
10.1109/TCC.2015.2451649 ests are software-defined net-
90. Xue, X.M., Zhou, J.Z.: A hybrid fault diagnosis approach based working, the Internet of Things,
on mixed-domain state features for rotating machinery. ISA wireless networks, and telecommunication network management.
Trans. 66, 284–295 (2017)
91. Sasmita, Y., Darmawan, G.: Accuracy evaluation of Fourier Mohammad Mehdi Ebadzadeh
series analysis and singular spectrum analysis for predicting the received the B.Sc. in Electrical
volume of motorcycle sales in Indonesia. AIP Conf. Proc. (2017). Engineering from Sharif
https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4995125 University of Technology, Iran
92. Golyandina, N., Korobeynikov, A.: Basic singular spectrum in 1991 and M.Sc. in Machine
analysis and forecasting with R. Comput. Stat. Data Anal. (2014). Intelligence and Robotic from
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csda.2013.04.009 Amirkabir University of Tech-
93. Andonovski, G., Mušič, G., Blažič, S., Škrjanc, I.: Evolving nology, Iran in 1995 and his
model identification for process monitoring and prediction of Ph.D. in Machine Intelligence
non-linear systems. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 68, 214–221 (2018) and Robotic from Télécom
94. Angelov, P., Yager, R.: A new type of simplified fuzzy rule-based ParisTech in 2004. Currently, he
system. Int. J. General Syst. (2012). https://doi.org/10.1080/ is an associate professor in the
03081079.2011.634807 Computer Engineering Depart-
95. Banihabib, M.E., Bandari, R., Peralta, R.C.: Auto-regressive ment of Amirkabir University of
neural-network models for long lead-time forecasting of daily Technology (Tehran Polytech-
flow. Water Resour. Manag. 33, 159–172 (2019) nic). His research interests include: Evolutionary Algorithms, Fuzzy
96. Beloglazov, A., Buyya, R.: Managing overloaded hosts for Systems, Neural Networks, Artificial Immune Systems and Robotics
dynamic consolidation of virtual machines in cloud data centers and Artificial Muscles.
under quality of service constraints. IEEE Trans. Parallel Distrib.
Syst. 24(7), 1366–1379 (2012)
97. Casolari, S., Colajanni, M., Presti, F.L.: Runtime state change
detector of computer system resources under non stationary
conditions. In: 2009 IEEE International Symposium on Model-
ing, Analysis & Simulation of Computer and Telecommunication
Systems 2009, pp. 1–10. IEEE

123
 Cluster Computing

Amir Masoud Rahmani received conferences. His research interests are in the areas of distributed
his B.S. in computer engineer- systems, ad hoc and wireless sensor networks, fault tolerant com-
ing from Amir Kabir University, puting and evolutionary computing.
Tehran, in 1996, the M.S. in
computer engineering from
Sharif University of technology,
Tehran, in 1998 and the PhD
degree in computer engineering
from Islamic Azad University
(IAU), science and research
branch, Tehran, in 2005. He is
Professor in the department of
computer engineering at the
IAU, science and research
branch. He is the author/co-au-
thor of more than 200 publications in technical journals and

123