SearcharxivSearch

arXiv · 1605.06940

Elastic Solver: Balancing Solution Time and Energy Consumption

Abstract

Combinatorial decision problems arise in many different domains such as scheduling, routing, packing, bioinformatics, and many more. Despite recent advances in developing scalable solvers, there are still many problems which are often very hard to solve. Typically the most advanced solvers include elements which are stochastic in nature. If a same instance is solved many times using different seeds then depending on the inherent characteristics of a problem instance and the solver, one can observe a highly-variant distribution of times spanning multiple orders of magnitude. Therefore, to solve a problem instance efficiently it is often useful to solve the same instance in parallel with different seeds. With the proliferation of cloud computing, it is natural to think about an elastic solver which can scale up by launching searches in parallel on thousands of machines (or cores). However, this could result in consuming a lot of energy. Moreover, not every instance would require thousands of machines. The challenge is to resolve the tradeoff between solution time and energy consumption optimally for a given problem instance. We analyse the impact of the number of machines (or cores) on not only solution time but also on energy consumption. We highlight that although solution time always drops as the number of machines increases, the relation between the number of machines and energy consumption is more complicated. In many cases, the optimal energy consumption may be achieved by a middle ground, we analyse this relationship in detail. The tradeoff between solution time and energy consumption is studied further, showing that the energy consumption of a solver can be reduced drastically if we increase the solution time marginally. We also develop a prediction model, demonstrating that such insights can be exploited to achieve faster solutions times in a more energy efficient manor.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Barry Hurley, Deepak Mehta, Barry O'Sullivan. 2016-05-23. Elastic Solver: Balancing Solution Time and Energy Consumption. https://arxiv.org/abs/1605.06940

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Decoupling Readiness from Release for Tail-Aware Scheduling of Agentic LLM Workflows

Agentic LLM workflows consist of sequences of model turns interleaved with tool interactions, so their end-to-end completion time depends not only on inference speed but also on when ready turns are released. Most runtimes release each turn immediately upon readiness. Under contention, this eager release policy can accumulate released but unfinished work; once submitted, those turns can no longer be reordered by the workflow-level policy, increasing tail latency. We present a tail-risk-aware turn release scheduling method that jointly decides which ready turn to release next and how much released but unfinished work to maintain. The method uses a mean--Conditional Value-at-Risk (CVaR) objective to capture the evolving tail risk of unfinished workflows, incorporates online estimates of turn work when prioritizing ready turns, and adapts the released work budget to observed queue pressure. We evaluate the method using real agent execution traces from software engineering tasks across multiple LLMs and workflow arrival rates. The method performs comparably to eager release under light load and substantially reduces the P95 of workflow flow time under contention, achieving up to a \(3.50\times\) speedup.

cs.AI

Demystifying the Privacy-Utility Trade-off in LLM Interactions

The integration of Large Language Models into daily tasks relies on context-rich instructions, inevitably exposing sensitive user information. Current privacy-preserving methods typically employ context-agnostic static rules, causing severe utility degradation. However, the specific mechanisms governing how sanitization impacts downstream performance remain largely underexplored. To address this, we conduct a systematic analysis to deconstruct the privacy-utility trade-off, uncovering three underlying mechanisms: (1) Context-Dependent Utility, which first establishes when to sanitize by revealing that data value shifts from critical constraints to dispensable noise based on user intent; (2) Strategic Adaptation, which subsequently determines how to sanitize by dictating that the choice between removal and replacement depends on the task's reliance on factual integrity versus structural coherence; and (3) Combinatorial Interplay, which finally extends the protection scope by demonstrating that attributes form a semantic web of synergistic dependencies or antagonistic redundancies. Guided by these insights, we introduce an intent-driven local protection framework. By distilling a lightweight model Veilmind-4B to drive a dynamic extraction-sanitization-restoration pipeline, our approach reaches a low-leakage privacy point while preserving substantially higher response utility than existing privacy-oriented baselines, advancing the privacy-utility trade-off toward the Pareto frontier.

cs.AI

Defining AI Agents: A Compendium of Criteria, Metrics, and Benchmarks

The term agent in artificial intelligence lacks a standard definition, complicating the evaluation, comparison, and reproducibility of AI agent research. We address this ambiguity through a survey organized around five dimensions of agenticness: environmental interaction, learning and adaptation, autonomy, goal-directed behavior, and temporal coherence. For each dimension, we examine how the underlying capability has been conceptualized across prior work and synthesize the metrics, benchmarks, and evaluation frameworks used to assess it. This review provides a structured account of the current landscape of agent evaluation, highlighting both established approaches and areas where evaluation remains limited or inconsistent. We additionally introduce the Agent Compendium, a public-facing digital resource that organizes and extends the evaluation methods identified through this review. Together, the survey and compendium provide a common structure for evaluating and comparing agent capabilities across AI systems, supporting more reproducible research, clearer communication, and more systematic study of artificial agents.

cs.AI