Papers for

cloud platform engineers

Papers whose findings have a practical use for this group, as judged from the abstract. Open a paper to read what it means in practice.

Digital twin simulations get model-focused DevOps system for cloud use

A Model-Centric DevOps Architecture for DEVS-Based Digital Twin Simulation Services

Abstract: Digital twin simulation models are evolved and redeployed like software, yet DEVS-based engines offer a sound formal basis with little support for versioning, automated validation, or continuous delivery in cloud-native environments, leaving model lifecycle management ad hoc in most deployments. This paper proposes a model-centric DevOps architecture for deploying DEVS-based digital twin simulations as managed services. Simulation models are treated as first-class DevOps artefacts defined in a declarative YAML language with a formal mapping to multiPDEVS, supporting structural and semantic validation in a CI/CD pipeline that produces immutable versioned artefacts, so that reverting to an earlier validated version reduces to pinning its identifier. The platform is decomposed into containerised microservices on Kubernetes, with engine adaptations for state externalisation and lifecycle control. An initial case study on the Riga Route 22 public-transit corridor, the first instantiation of a planned city-wide multi-modal transport digital twin for Riga, Latvia, exercises the full lifecycle and reports single-container engine throughput for a scenario with roughly 47,870 DEVS atomic components; pipeline-level catch statistics and cluster-level concurrent multi-scenario execution are the subject of companion empirical studies.

Thu 10 SeptSoftware EngineeringComputational Engineering, Finance, and ScienceDistributed, Parallel, and Cluster Computing
The gist
Digital twin simulations—virtual copies of real-world systems—are tricky to update and manage like software. The authors created a system that treats simulation models like code, using a special format and tools to check and deploy them automatically. This makes it easier to keep track of different versions, fix errors, and run these simulations reliably in the cloud. They tested their approach with a big transit simulation for Riga, showing it can handle many components efficiently.
Open 2609.11122v1

T1 agent improves long task solving with 122B parameter model

T1: Terminal Agent Reinforcement Learning for Long-Horizon Tasks

Abstract: Agent usage is shifting toward long-horizon tasks such as coding and scientific discovery, among which terminal tasks are especially important. We introduce T1, a Mixture-of-Experts model of 122B total trained with reinforcement learning, operating a real shell in a cloud sandbox for up to 300+ tool-call turns per task, rewarded by executing each task's own verifier. We provide a comprehensive recipe: First, an aggressively warm-started to stabilize actor-critic training, with a dense process reward scoring trajectories by the absolute number of passing verifiers. Second, stable optimization through TITO construction, training on the exact sampled token identifiers with drift repair at turn boundaries, and rollout routing replay, recording the sampler's per-token expert choices at every MoE layer and replaying them during training. Third, fully out-of-distribution training corpus: isolated seeds and synthesized tasks disjoint from Terminal-Bench 2.1 ensures gains reflect genuine capability transfer over benchmark overfitting. Together, TITO and R3 cut the training-to-inference log-probability difference from 0.021 to 0.013, with exactly aligned zero token drift in the loss region. On Terminal-Bench 2.1, our post-train pipeline raises initial base model from 43.8% to T1 with 64.0% resolved. On Long-Horizon Terminal Bench, T1 reaches 27.9% and surpasses GPT-5.4 and GLM-5.1.

Thu 10 SeptMachine LearningArtificial Intelligence
The gist
Long tasks like coding or scientific discovery are hard for AI because they require many steps. The authors developed an AI model called T1 that works in a real computer shell, running many commands in sequence to complete tasks. They trained T1 using special techniques to make learning stable and tested it on tasks not seen before to prove it can adapt. T1 worked better than previous AI models on these long and complex tasks, showing progress in teaching AI to manage multi-step problems.
Open 2609.11042v1

Gap found in cloud edge iot systems for llm based resource control

Smart Adaptive Computing Across the Continuum: LLMs in IoT-Edge-Cloud Resource Management

Abstract: Managing resources across IoT, edge, and cloud layers calls for continuous, context-aware decisions under constraints that rarely stay fixed. Deep reinforcement learning (DRL) handles this class of problems well, and large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to augment DRL pipelines, yet the architectural relationship between the two is seldom made explicit. We build on Wang et al.'s taxonomy of Continuum Orchestration Systems employing DRL techniques and extend it with two further dimensions. The AI Augmentation Paradigm measures how LLMs are exploited, while the Feedback channel captures whether and through which system path the execution feedback returns to the LLM in order to close the MAPE control loop at the LLM Orchestration layer. We apply this taxonomy to six recent system architectures and find a common gap, as none combines full LLM orchestration with full agent-layer feedback in a Cloud Continuum setting. We relate this gap to a missing cross-tier feedback abstraction, bridging the incommensurable per-tier signals and the LLM Orchestrator.

Tue 8 SeptDistributed, Parallel, and Cluster ComputingArtificial IntelligenceMultiagent Systems
The gist
Managing computing resources that span from tiny devices (IoT) to large cloud servers is tricky because conditions keep changing. The authors look at how two AI tools—deep reinforcement learning (DRL) and large language models (LLMs)—can work together to make smarter management decisions. They extend an existing classification system to better understand how LLMs are used and how feedback is fed back into the system. Their review of recent systems finds a key missing piece: no system fully uses LLM-driven control while getting complete feedback from all parts of the system. They identify this as a challenge needing better communication across different system layers.
Open 2609.09348v1

LLM fault injection offers different cloud system testing behaviors than rule methods

Beyond Fixed Fault Models: Comparing LLM-Based and Rule-Based Fault Injection in OpenStack

Abstract: Software Fault Injection (SFI) supports testing of cloud systems by introducing software defects and observing their manifestation. Rule-based injectors such as ProFIPy provide controlled and reproducible source-level mutations but require fault patterns to be encoded manually. Large Language Models (LLMs) offer a data-driven alternative by generating context-dependent software faults. We compare two code LLMs, Qwen2.5-Coder and DeepSeek-Coder, with ProFIPy in OpenStack's Nova and Cinder services. On shared injection targets, activation and observable-failure rates are comparable, but operational profiles differ: LLM-generated faults produce more Catastrophic outcomes on Nova, whereas ProFIPy produces more Silent and Multi-component effects. The sampled LLM outputs also differ in how they manifest failure, while showing greater agreement in their propagation scope. These findings show that LLM-based fault injection extends the behavioral coverage of fixed fault models without establishing general superiority, and that practical adoption still requires controlled generation, runtime validation, system-level oracles, and reproducible experimental provenance.

Tue 8 SeptSoftware Engineering
The gist
Testing cloud software by deliberately adding bugs helps find problems before users do. The authors compared two methods: one uses fixed, manually coded rules to add bugs, and the other uses AI language models to create faults based on the code context. Both methods triggered failures at similar rates but caused different types of problems, showing that AI-generated faults cover different testing scenarios. This means AI can add value without fully replacing traditional testing tools, and practical use needs careful setup for reliability and repeatability.
Open 2609.08681v1