CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 5Cloud Computing and Resource ManagementArtificial Intelligence ApplicationsInternet of Things and AI

The DOI matches its DataCite record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Cloud Platforms for Developing Generative AI Solutions: A Scoping Review of Tools and Services

Open access
Patel, Dhavalkumar, Raut, Ganesh, Cheetirala, Satya Narayan, Nadkarni, Girish N, Freeman, Robert, Glicksberg, Benjamin S., Klang, Eyal, Timsina, Prem·2024·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2412.06044arXiv 2412.06044
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Generative AI is transforming enterprise application development by enabling machines to create content, code, and designs. These models, however, demand substantial computational power and data management. Cloud computing addresses these needs by offering infrastructure to train, deploy, and scale generative AI models. This review examines cloud services for generative AI, focusing on key providers like Amazon Web Services (AWS), Microsoft Azure, Google Cloud, IBM Cloud, Oracle Cloud, and Alibaba Cloud. It compares their strengths, weaknesses, and impact on enterprise growth. We explore the role of high-performance computing (HPC), serverless architectures, edge computing, and storage in supporting generative AI. We also highlight the significance of data management, networking, and AI-specific tools in building and deploying these models. Additionally, the review addresses security concerns, including data privacy, compliance, and AI model protection. It assesses the performance and cost efficiency of various cloud providers and presents case studies from healthcare, finance, and entertainment. We conclude by discussing challenges and future directions, such as technical hurdles, vendor lock-in, sustainability, and regulatory issues. Put together, this work can serve as a guide for practitioners and researchers looking to adopt cloud-based generative AI solutions, serving as a valuable guide to navigating the intricacies of this evolving field.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2412.06044

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Output verification mechanisms frequently complement generation processes, confirming factual alignment between generated responses and retrieved source materials.

    “Output verification mechanisms frequently complement generation processes, confirming factual alignment between generated responses and retrieved source materials.”

    From Recent Innovations in Cloud-Optimized Retrieval-Augmented Generation Architectures for AI-Driven Decision Systems (2025) · cites this paper as [4]

    Section 2.1.3 says retrieval-augmented generation uses external sources to improve factual accuracy, and section 4.5.2 describes model-evaluation frameworks. Neither passage says output-verification mechanisms frequently accompany generation or compare generated responses with retrieved materials to confirm factual alignment. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Generation components typically implement constraints preventing hallucination when retrieved information conflicts with parametric knowledge, prioritizing external information while maintaining linguistic fluency.

    “Generation components typically implement constraints preventing hallucination when retrieved information conflicts with parametric knowledge, prioritizing external information while maintaining linguistic fluency [4].”

    From Recent Innovations in Cloud-Optimized Retrieval-Augmented Generation Architectures for AI-Driven Decision Systems (2025) · cites this paper as [4]

    Section 2.1.3 (page unavailable) says RAG integrates external knowledge to improve factual accuracy and reduce hallucinations. It does not say generation components typically impose constraints when retrieved information conflicts with parametric knowledge, prioritize the retrieved information, or preserve linguistic fluency under those constraints. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Specialized vector databases typically implement distributed architectures supporting horizontal scaling across multiple processing nodes, enabling performance maintenance despite growing index sizes.

    “These specialized databases typically implement distributed architectures supporting horizontal scaling across multiple processing nodes, enabling performance maintenance despite growing index sizes [4].”

    From Recent Innovations in Cloud-Optimized Retrieval-Augmented Generation Architectures for AI-Driven Decision Systems (2025) · cites this paper as [4]

    Section 4.4.1 discusses distributed AI-optimized file systems, not specialized vector databases. Searches for vector databases, horizontal scaling, and growing index sizes found no passage addressing whether vector databases maintain performance as indexes grow. (LLM, conf=0.73)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Relevance scoring systems evaluate potential matches through composite metrics incorporating multiple factors beyond raw vector similarity, including text length, term frequency, and document structure characteristics.

    “Relevance scoring systems evaluate potential matches through composite metrics incorporating multiple factors beyond raw vector similarity, including text length, term frequency, and document structure characteristics [4].”

    From Recent Innovations in Cloud-Optimized Retrieval-Augmented Generation Architectures for AI-Driven Decision Systems (2025) · cites this paper as [4]

    The paper's §2.1.3 discusses retrieving relevant information for RAG, but does not explain how potential matches are scored. Searches for relevance scoring, vector similarity, and term frequency found no passage describing a composite metric based on text length, term frequency, or document structure. (LLM, conf=0.73)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 99

  1. J. Achiam et al., "Gpt-4 technical report," arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774, 2023. · arXiv
  2. G. Team et al., "Gemini: A Family of Highly Capable Multimodal Models", p. arXiv:2312.11805doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2312.11805. · DOI · Paper page
  3. Z. Shi, X. Zhou, X. Qiu, and X. Zhu, "Improving Image Captioning with Better Use of Captions," p. arXiv:2006.11807doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2006.11807. · DOI
  4. H. Arksey and L. O'Malley, "Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework," Interna- tional Journal of Social Research Methodology, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 19-32, 2005/02/01 2005, doi: 10.1080/1364557032000119616. · DOI · Paper page
  5. M. A. Boden, "Creativity and artificial intelligence," Artificial intelligence, vol. 103, no. 1-2, pp. 347-356, 1998.
  6. Y. LeCun, Y. Bengio, and G. Hinton, "Deep learning," nature, vol. 521, no. 7553, pp. 436-444, 2015.
  7. C. Akkus et al., "Multimodal Deep Learning," p. arXiv:2301.04856doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2301.04856. · DOI
  8. A. Newell, J. C. Shaw, and H. A. Simon, "Report on a general problem solving program," in IFIP congress, 1959, vol. 256: Pittsburgh, PA, p. 64.
  9. D. E. Rumelhart, G. E. Hinton, and R. J. Williams, "Learning representations by back-propagating errors," nature, vol. 323, no. 6088, pp. 533-536, 1986.
  10. J. H. Holland, "Genetic algorithms," Scientific american, vol. 267, no. 1, pp. 66-73, 1992.
  11. I. Goodfellow et al., "Generative adversarial nets," Advances in neural information processing sys- tems, vol. 27, 2014.
  12. A. Vaswani et al., "Attention Is All You Need," p. arXiv:1706.03762doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1706.03762. · DOI · Paper page
  13. A. Ramesh, P. Dhariwal, A. Nichol, C. Chu, and M. Chen, "Hierarchical Text-Conditional Image Generation with CLIP Latents," p. arXiv:2204.06125doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2204.06125. · DOI · Paper page
  14. R. Rombach, A. Blattmann, D. Lorenz, P. Esser, and B. Ommer, "High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models," in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2022, pp. 10684-10695.
  15. A. Dubey et al., "The llama 3 herd of models," arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21783, 2024. · arXiv
  16. T. Gunter et al., "Apple intelligence foundation language models," arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21075, 2024. · arXiv
  17. G. Team et al., "Gemini 1.5: Unlocking multimodal understanding across millions of tokens of context," p. arXiv:2403.05530doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2403.05530. · DOI · Paper page
  18. H. Touvron et al., "Llama 2: Open Foundation and Fine-Tuned Chat Models," p. arXiv:2307.09288doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2307.09288. · DOI · Paper page
  19. A. Dubey et al., "The Llama 3 Herd of Models," p. arXiv:2407.21783doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.21783. · DOI · Paper page
  20. O. Sharir, B. Peleg, and Y. Shoham, "The cost of training nlp models: A concise overview," arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.08900, 2020. · arXiv
  21. OpenAI et al., "GPT-4 Technical Report," p. arXiv:2303.08774doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2303.08774. · DOI · Paper page
  22. E. J. Hu et al., "Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models," arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.09685, 2021. · arXiv
  23. N. Houlsby et al., "Parameter-efficient transfer learning for NLP," in International conference on machine learning, 2019: PMLR, pp. 2790-2799.
  24. G. Hinton, "Distilling the Knowledge in a Neural Network," arXiv preprint arXiv:1503.02531, 2015. · arXiv
  25. K. Singhal et al., "Large language models encode clinical knowledge," arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.13138, 2022. · arXiv
  26. J. Jumper et al., "Highly accurate protein structure prediction with AlphaFold," nature, vol. 596, no. 7873, pp. 583-589, 2021.
  27. Y. Bengio, P. Simard, and P. Frasconi, "Learning long-term dependencies with gradient descent is dif- ficult," IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 157-166, 1994, doi: 10.1109/72.279181. · DOI · Paper page
  28. G. Izacard and E. Grave, "Leveraging passage retrieval with generative models for open domain question answering," arXiv preprint arXiv:2007.01282, 2020. · arXiv
  29. R. Nakano et al., "WebGPT: Browser-assisted question-answering with human feedback," p. arXiv:2112.09332doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2112.09332. · DOI · Paper page
  30. B. Peng et al., "Graph Retrieval-Augmented Generation: A Survey," p. arXiv:2408.08921doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2408.08921. · DOI · Paper page
  31. B. Sarmah, B. Hall, R. Rao, S. Patel, S. Pasquali, and D. Mehta, "HybridRAG: Integrating Knowl- edge Graphs and Vector Retrieval Augmented Generation for Efficient Information Extraction," p. arXiv:2408.04948doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2408.04948. · DOI
  32. T. Baltrušaitis, C. Ahuja, and L.-P. Morency, "Multimodal machine learning: A survey and tax- onomy," IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 423-443, 2018.
  33. A. Radford et al., "Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision," presented at the International Conference on Machine Learning, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://openai.com/ blog/clip/.
  34. J. Andreas, D. Klein, and S. Levine, "Learning with latent language," arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.00482, 2017. · arXiv
  35. P. Mell, "The NIST Definition of Cloud Computing," NIST Special Publication, pp. 800-145, 2011.
  36. N. P. Jouppi et al., "In-Datacenter Performance Analysis of a Tensor Processing Unit," p. arXiv:1704.04760doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1704.04760. · DOI
  37. E. F. Coutinho, F. R. de Carvalho Sousa, P. A. L. Rego, D. G. Gomes, and J. N. de Souza, "Elasticity in cloud computing: a survey," annals of telecommunications -annales des télécommunications, vol. 70, no. 7, pp. 289-309, 2015/08/01 2015, doi: 10.1007/s12243-014-0450-7. · DOI
  38. A. Aghajanyan et al., "Scaling Laws for Generative Mixed-Modal Language Models," p. arXiv:2301.03728doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2301.03728. · DOI · Paper page
  39. D. Bernstein, "Containers and Cloud: From LXC to Docker to Kubernetes," IEEE Cloud Computing, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 81-84, 2014, doi: 10.1109/MCC.2014.51. · DOI
  40. I. Baldini et al., "Serverless Computing: Current Trends and Open Problems," p. arXiv:1706.03178doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1706.03178. · DOI
  41. P. Singh, A. Kaur, and S. S. Gill, "Machine learning for cloud, fog, edge and serverless computing environments: Comparisons, performance evaluation benchmark and future directions," International Journal of Grid and Utility Computing, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 447-457, 2022.
  42. D. Kreuzberger, N. Kühl, and S. Hirschl, "Machine learning operations (mlops): Overview, definition, and architecture," IEEE access, vol. 11, pp. 31866-31879, 2023.
  43. R. Buyya, C. S. Yeo, S. Venugopal, J. Broberg, and I. Brandic, "Cloud computing and emerging IT platforms: Vision, hype, and reality for delivering computing as the 5th utility," Future Generation Computer Systems, vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 599-616, 2009/06/01/ 2009, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j. future.2008.12.001. · DOI
  44. J. Hong, T. Dreibholz, J. A. Schenkel, and J. A. Hu, "An overview of multi-cloud computing," in Web, Artificial Intelligence and Network Applications: Proceedings of the Workshops of the 33rd International Conference on Advanced Information Networking and Applications (WAINA-2019) 33, 2019: Springer, pp. 1055-1068.
  45. W. Shi, J. Cao, Q. Zhang, Y. Li, and L. Xu, "Edge Computing: Vision and Challenges," IEEE Internet of Things Journal, vol. 3, no. 5, pp. 637-646, 2016, doi: 10.1109/JIOT.2016.2579198. · DOI · Paper page
  46. L. Alhenaki, A. Alwatban, B. Alahmri, and N. Alarifi, "Security in cloud computing: a survey," International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security (IJCSIS), vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 67-90, 2019.
  47. K. Zhang, Y. Mao, S. Leng, Y. He, and Y. Zhang, "Mobile-edge computing for vehicular networks: A promising network paradigm with predictive off-loading," IEEE vehicular technology magazine, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 36-44, 2017.
  48. X. Wang, Y. Han, C. Wang, Q. Zhao, X. Chen, and M. Chen, "In-Edge AI: Intelligentizing Mo- bile Edge Computing, Caching and Communication by Federated Learning," p. arXiv:1809.07857doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1809.07857. · DOI
  49. H. Li, K. Ota, and M. Dong, "Learning IoT in edge: Deep learning for the Internet of Things with edge computing," IEEE network, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 96-101, 2018.
  50. M. Schuld, I. Sinayskiy, and F. Petruccione, "An introduction to quantum machine learning," Con- temporary Physics, vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 172-185, 2015.
  51. A. Chowdhery et al., "Palm: Scaling language modeling with pathways," Journal of Machine Learning Research, vol. 24, no. 240, pp. 1-113, 2023.
  52. T. Sterling, M. Brodowicz, and M. Anderson, High performance computing: modern systems and practices. Morgan Kaufmann, 2017.
  53. W. J. Dally, S. W. Keckler, and D. B. Kirk, "Evolution of the graphics processing unit (GPU)," IEEE Micro, vol. 41, no. 6, pp. 42-51, 2021.
  54. A. Aghajanyan et al., "Scaling laws for generative mixed-modal language models," in International Conference on Machine Learning, 2023: PMLR, pp. 265-279.
  55. D. Patterson et al., "Carbon emissions and large neural network training," arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.10350, 2021. · arXiv
  56. D. Chahal, M. Ramesh, R. Ojha, and R. Singhal, "High performance serverless architecture for deep learning workflows," in 2021 IEEE/ACM 21st International Symposium on Cluster, Cloud and Internet Computing (CCGrid), 2021: IEEE, pp. 790-796.
  57. E. Paraskevoulakou and D. Kyriazis, "ML-FaaS: Toward Exploiting the Serverless Paradigm to Facilitate Machine Learning Functions as a Service," IEEE Transactions on Network and Service Man- agement, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 2110-2123, 2023.
  58. K. Kojs, "A Survey of Serverless Machine Learning Model Inference," p. arXiv:2311.13587doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2311.13587. · DOI
  59. V. Ishakian, V. Muthusamy, and A. Slominski, "Serving deep learning models in a serverless platform," in 2018 IEEE International conference on cloud engineering (IC2E), 2018: IEEE, pp. 257- 262.
  60. A. Gallego, U. Odyurt, Y. Cheng, Y. Wang, and Z. Zhao, "Machine Learning Inference on Serverless Platforms Using Model Decomposition," in Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM 16th International Conference on Utility and Cloud Computing, 2023, pp. 1-6.
  61. M. S. Aslanpour et al., "Serverless edge computing: vision and challenges," in Proceedings of the 2021 Australasian computer science week multiconference, 2021, pp. 1-10.
  62. Y. Fu et al., "{ServerlessLLM}:{Low-Latency} Serverless Inference for Large Language Models," in 18th USENIX Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation (OSDI 24), 2024, pp. 135-153.
  63. A. Arjona, P. G. López, J. Sampé, A. Slominski, and L. Villard, "Triggerflow: Trigger-based orchestration of serverless workflows," Future Generation Computer Systems, vol. 124, pp. 215-229, 2021/11/01/ 2021, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2021.06.004. · DOI
  64. D. Loconte, S. Ieva, A. Pinto, G. Loseto, F. Scioscia, and M. Ruta, "Expanding the cloud-to-edge continuum to the IoT in serverless federated learning," Future Generation Computer Systems, vol. 155, pp. 447-462, 2024/06/01/ 2024, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2024.02.024. · DOI
  65. S. Qi, K. Ramakrishnan, and M. Lee, "LIFL: A Lightweight, Event-driven Serverless Platform for Federated Learning," Proceedings of Machine Learning and Systems, vol. 6, pp. 408-425, 2024.
  66. Z. Zhou, X. Chen, E. Li, L. Zeng, K. Luo, and J. Zhang, "Edge Intelligence: Paving the Last Mile of Artificial Intelligence With Edge Computing," Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 107, no. 8, pp. 1738-1762, 2019, doi: 10.1109/JPROC.2019.2918951. · DOI · Paper page
  67. S. Teerapittayanon, B. McDanel, and H.-T. Kung, "Distributed deep neural networks over the cloud, the edge and end devices," in 2017 IEEE 37th international conference on distributed computing systems (ICDCS), 2017: IEEE, pp. 328-339.
  68. T. Li, A. K. Sahu, A. Talwalkar, and V. Smith, "Federated learning: Challenges, methods, and future directions," IEEE signal processing magazine, vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 50-60, 2020.
  69. T. Liang, J. Glossner, L. Wang, S. Shi, and X. Zhang, "Pruning and quantization for deep neural network acceleration: A survey," Neurocomputing, vol. 461, pp. 370-403, 2021.
  70. A. Kuzmin, M. Nagel, M. Van Baalen, A. Behboodi, and T. Blankevoort, "Pruning vs quantization: which is better?," Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 36, 2024.
  71. Y. Mao, C. You, J. Zhang, K. Huang, and K. B. Letaief, "A survey on mobile edge computing: The communication perspective," IEEE communications surveys & tutorials, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 2322-2358, 2017.
  72. A. Gholami et al., "Squeezenext: Hardware-aware neural network design," in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition workshops, 2018, pp. 1638-1647.
  73. Y. Jia et al., "Model Pruning-enabled Federated Split Learning for Resource-constrained Devices in Artificial Intelligence Empowered Edge Computing Environment," ACM Transactions on Sensor Net- works, 2024.
  74. P. Patel et al., "Splitwise: Efficient generative llm inference using phase splitting," in 2024 ACM/IEEE 51st Annual International Symposium on Computer Architecture (ISCA), 2024: IEEE, pp. 118-132.
  75. Y. Long, I. Chakraborty, G. Srinivasan, and K. Roy, "Complexity-aware adaptive training and infer- ence for edge-cloud distributed AI systems," in 2021 IEEE 41st International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems (ICDCS), 2021: IEEE, pp. 573-583.
  76. S. Nayak, R. Patgiri, L. Waikhom, and A. Ahmed, "A review on edge analytics: Issues, challenges, opportunities, promises, future directions, and applications," Digital Communications and Networks, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 783-804, 2024/06/01/ 2024, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcan.2022.10.016. · DOI
  77. E. Forno, A. Spitale, E. Macii, and G. Urgese, "Configuring an embedded neuromorphic copro- cessor using a risc-v chip for enabling edge computing applications," in 2021 IEEE 14th International Symposium on Embedded Multicore/Many-core Systems-on-Chip (MCSoC), 2021: IEEE, pp. 328-332.
  78. P. Madduru, "Artificial Intelligence as a service in distributed multi access edge computing on 5G extracting data using IoT and including AR/VR for real-time reporting," Information Technology In Industry, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 912-931, 2021.
  79. Y. Shen et al., "Large language models empowered autonomous edge AI for connected intelligence," IEEE Communications Magazine, 2024.
  80. Y. Tian et al., "An Edge-Cloud Collaboration Framework for Generative AI Service Provision with Synergetic Big Cloud Model and Small Edge Models," arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.01666, 2024. · arXiv
  81. R. De Prisco, B. Lampson, and N. Lynch, "Revisiting the Paxos algorithm," Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 243, no. 1-2, pp. 35-91, 2000.
  82. F. Chang et al., "Bigtable: A distributed storage system for structured data," ACM Transactions on Computer Systems (TOCS), vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 1-26, 2008.
  83. H. Fang, "Managing data lakes in big data era: What's a data lake and why has it became popular in data management ecosystem," in 2015 IEEE International Conference on Cyber Technology in Automation, Control, and Intelligent Systems (CYBER), 2015: IEEE, pp. 820-824.
  84. A. Singhal, Data warehousing and data mining techniques for cyber security. Springer Science & Business Media, 2007.
  85. K. Shvachko, H. Kuang, S. Radia, and R. Chansler, "The hadoop distributed file system," in 2010 IEEE 26th symposium on mass storage systems and technologies (MSST), 2010: Ieee, pp. 1-10.
  86. B. Chen and J. Zhang, "Content-aware scalable deep compressed sensing," IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, vol. 31, pp. 5412-5426, 2022.
  87. A. L'heureux, K. Grolinger, H. F. Elyamany, and M. A. Capretz, "Machine learning with big data: Challenges and approaches," Ieee Access, vol. 5, pp. 7776-7797, 2017.
  88. O. Olesen-Bagneux, The Enterprise Data Catalog. " O'Reilly Media, Inc.", 2023.
  89. P. Russom, D. Stodder, and F. Halper, "Real-time data, BI, and analytics," Accelerating Business to Leverage Customer Relations, Competitiveness, and Insights. TDWI best practices report, fourth quarter, pp. 5-25, 2014.
  90. R. Ramakrishnan and J. Gehrke, Database management systems. McGraw-Hill, Inc., 2002.
  91. D. Solove, The Digital Person: Technology and Privacy in the Information Age. New York Univer- sity Press, 2004.
  92. T. Koltay, "Data governance, data literacy and the management of data quality," IFLA journal, vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 303-312, 2016.
  93. S. Arunachalam and R. De Wolf, "Guest column: A survey of quantum learning theory," ACM Sigact News, vol. 48, no. 2, pp. 41-67, 2017.
  94. F. Bonchi, B. Malin, and Y. Saygin, "Recent advances in preserving privacy when mining data," Data & Knowledge Engineering, vol. 65, no. 1, pp. 1-4, 2008.
  95. K. Holstein, J. Wortman Vaughan, H. Daumé III, M. Dudik, and H. Wallach, "Improving fairness in machine learning systems: What do industry practitioners need?," in Proceedings of the 2019 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, 2019, pp. 1-16.
  96. S. Newman, Building microservices. " O'Reilly Media, Inc.", 2021.
  97. E. Felstaine and O. Hermoni, "Machine Learning, Containers, Cloud Natives, and Microservices," in Artificial Intelligence for Autonomous Networks: Chapman and Hall/CRC, 2018, pp. 145-164.
  98. M. S. Aslanpour, S. S. Gill, and A. N. Toosi, "Performance evaluation metrics for cloud, fog and edge computing: A review, taxonomy, benchmarks and standards for future research," Internet of Things, vol. 12, p. 100273, 2020/12/01/ 2020, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iot.2020.100273. · DOI · Paper page
  99. T. A. Assegie, "Evaluation of local interpretable model-agnostic explanation and shapley additive explanation for chronic heart disease detection," Proc Eng Technol Innov, vol. 23, pp. 48-59, 2023.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Patel, D., Raut, G., Cheetirala, S. N., Nadkarni, G. N., Freeman, R., Glicksberg, B. S., Klang, E., & Timsina, P.
Affiliations
Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai (US)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2024
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2412.06044
arXiv
2412.06044
OpenAlex
W4405253864
Cited by
5
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Cloud Computing and Resource Management
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Artificial Intelligence Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Internet of Things and AI
Keywords
generative AI, cloud computing, cloud service providers, enterprise application development, high-performance computing, serverless computing, edge computing, data management, AI model security, data privacy, compliance, cost efficiency, vendor lock-in, sustainability, health care, entertainment

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review