cover
Article Per Year (5 Year)
All
Home Page
OAI Link
Editorial Team
Contact
Reviewer
Google Scholar
Contact Name
Johan Reimon Batmetan
Contact Email
garuda@apji.org
Phone
+6285885852706
Journal Mail Official
danang@stekom.ac.id
Editorial Address
Jl. Majapahit No.304, Pedurungan Kidul, Kec. Pedurungan, Semarang, Provinsi Jawa Tengah, 52361
Location
Kota semarang,
Jawa tengah
INDONESIA
Journal of Technology Informatics and Engineering
Published by Universitas Sains Dan Teknologi Komputer
ISSN : 29619068     EISSN : 29618215     DOI : 10.51903
Core Subject : Science,
Computer Science & IT
Power Engineering Telecommunication Engineering Computer Engineering Control and Computer Systems Electronics Information technology Informatics Data and Software engineering Biomedical Engineering
Arjuna Subject : Ilmu Komputer (semua kategori) - Sistem Informasi
Articles 214 Documents
 18   19   20   21   22 
Few-Shot Cold-Start Workload Forecasting for New AI Inference Tenants with Time-Series Foundation Models Shilu He; Chengliang Li; Hengning Rao
Journal of Technology Informatics and Engineering Vol. 4 No. 1 (2025): APRIL | JTIE : Journal of Technology Informatics and Engineering
Publisher : University of Science and Computer Technology

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.51903/jtie.v4i1.546

Abstract

This paper presents a reproducible empirical study of few-shot cold-start workload forecasting for new AI inference tenants using the Alibaba GPU-disaggregated DLRM serving trace. Instance lifecycles are transformed into hourly active-demand series, and resource reservations are normalized into capacity units to evaluate 24-hour forecasting under zero-shot, 5-shot, 10-shot, and full-history settings. Seven forecasting methods are compared: archetype mean prior, persistence, moving average, linear trend, seasonal naive, global residual ridge, and CT-TSFM, a compact cross-tenant time-series foundation model. The cold-start evaluation uses 46 held-out tenants, with 110 source tenants for pretraining and calibration. Results show that hourly demand is strongly persistence-dominated. Zero-shot forecasting yields a mean absolute error (MAE) of 326.26 normalized capacity units, whereas only five observations reduce MAE to 4.00 for persistence, global residual ridge, and CT-TSFM. Validation consistently selects a residual gate of 0.0 for CT-TSFM, indicating that retaining the persistence prior and rejecting cross-tenant residual transfer is the most reliable strategy. Calibration intervals achieve approximately 85–87% coverage against a 90% target. The findings demonstrate that a few recent observations substantially improve cold-start forecasting, while source-tenant metadata alone provides limited zero-shot planning capability.
A Therapist-Facing Session Copilot for Live Counseling Support: Reasoning-Guided Retrieval and Ranking from Multi-Turn Counseling Dialogues Yifan Zhang; Hailey Zhang
Journal of Technology Informatics and Engineering Vol. 4 No. 2 (2025): AUGUST | JTIE : Journal of Technology Informatics and Engineering
Publisher : University of Science and Computer Technology

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.51903/jtie.v4i2.547

Abstract

This study develops and evaluates a retrieval-based therapist-facing session copilot for live counseling support using the public bilingual Psy-Insight dataset. Rather than providing autonomous psychotherapy or relying on a generative large language model (LLM), the system assists human therapists by ranking historical responses, retrieving interpretable rationales, and providing conservative contextual support. The reproducible pipeline combines TF-IDF representations, class-balanced LinearSVC routers, nearest-neighbor rationale retrieval, and label-aware response ranking without LLM fine-tuning. Experiments use all 520 English and 431 Chinese sessions (6,208 and 5,776 turns, respectively) with session-level train/dev/test splits. Psychotherapy routing achieves strong macro-F1 scores of 0.897 in English and 0.757 in Chinese, whereas strategy routing remains weak (0.253 and 0.268). Label-aware rationale retrieval improves ROUGE-L from 0.145 to 0.152 in English and from 0.142 to 0.151 in Chinese. The best response-ranking approach presents retrieved reasoning in parallel rather than through reasoning-fused reranking, increasing MRR from 0.498 to 0.541 in English and from 0.519 to 0.523 in Chinese while maintaining low latency (6.98–14.64 ms/query). These results demonstrate computational feasibility but do not establish therapeutic safety or clinical effectiveness.
Power-Aware Inventory Planning for AI Infrastructure Using Job-Level Forecasting and LLM Workload Explanations Shilu He; Jiayi Nie; Chengliang Li
Journal of Technology Informatics and Engineering Vol. 5 No. 1 (2026): APRIL | JTIE : Journal of Technology Informatics and Engineering
Publisher : University of Science and Computer Technology

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.51903/jtie.v5i1.548

Abstract

AI infrastructure planning is commonly expressed as a GPU-count problem, yet operational risk is created by the electric and thermal envelope that accompanies each accelerator. This paper evaluates a power-aware planning method on Dataset A, using the B200 eight-GPU Llama-8B training trace with 45,000 raw 20 ms telemetry rows and 8,940 reproducible supervised decision records after a 100 ms decision stride. The forecasting task predicts total eight-GPU power one second ahead from job-level counters, autoregressive lags, and rolling statistics. The planning task converts forecasts into a peak-aware admission rule and a circuit-inventory simulation for 32 concurrent jobs. XGBoost produced the strongest mean forecast, with MAE 273.26 W, RMSE 636.74 W, and R2 0.923. A calibrated high-quantile forecast produced lower peak-error behavior, reducing the scheduling violation rate from 5.31% under GPU-count-only admission to 0.18% while admitting 61.63% of decision points. In the inventory simulation, XGBoost mean forecasting used 21.00 mean circuits with 1.80% violation risk, whereas the calibrated p95 plan used 22.70 circuits and eliminated observed violations in 1,000 trials. The results show that capacity plans based only on GPU count hide measurable electrical risk. A combined GPU-capacity, power-envelope, and workload-explanation view produces a reproducible basis for AI data center purchasing, placement, and sustainability decisions.
Narrative-Aware Scientific Claim Verification Agent with Evidence Ranking for ClimateCheck Wenhao Su; Siyu Chen; Ethan Qian
Journal of Technology Informatics and Engineering Vol. 5 No. 1 (2026): APRIL | JTIE : Journal of Technology Informatics and Engineering
Publisher : University of Science and Computer Technology

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.51903/jtie.v5i1.549

Abstract

Climate misinformation often combines a factual proposition with a recognizable narrative, such as denying observed warming, rejecting human causation, minimizing impacts, attacking mitigation, or casting doubt on climate science. This paper presents a lightweight narrative-aware scientific claim verification agent for the official ClimateCheck setting. The revised evaluation uses the official annotated ClimateCheck training data, the official publications corpus of 394,269 abstracts, and a claim-level validation split of the annotated data. The public ClimateCheck test file is treated as a blind claim list because its public fields do not contain verification or narrative labels. The system combines hashed BM25, TF-IDF retrieval, latent semantic analysis, narrative-family probabilities, and a logistic-regression verifier. Full-corpus retrieval shows that BM25 remains the strongest first-stage retriever, with Recall@10 = 0.466, while the narrative-aware hybrid obtains Recall@10 = 0.444. In the judged candidate reranking setting, the narrative-aware ranker obtains the highest Candidate Recall@1 = 0.789 and MAP = 0.848, compared with 0.759 and 0.843 for TF-IDF. End-to-end verification remains difficult: the BM25 top-1 pipeline reaches Macro-F1 = 0.408, while the narrative-aware pipeline reaches Macro-F1 = 0.355. Claim-level narrative evaluation no longer produces a perfect score; single-label top-family Macro-F1 is 0.422, and fine-grained multi-label CARDS-code Macro-F1 is 0.098. These results show that narrative information is useful for reranking already plausible evidence candidates, but it does not replace strong lexical retrieval and does not by itself solve claim verification.

Page 22 of 22 | Total Record : 214

 18   19   20   21   22 

Filter by Year

2022 2026


Reset
Filter By Issues
All Issue Vol. 5 No. 2 (2026): AUGUST | JTIE : Journal of Technology Informatics and Engineering Vol. 5 No. 1 (2026): APRIL | JTIE : Journal of Technology Informatics and Engineering Vol. 4 No. 3 (2025): DECEMBER | JTIE : Journal of Technology Informatics and Engineering Vol. 4 No. 2 (2025): AUGUST | JTIE : Journal of Technology Informatics and Engineering Vol. 4 No. 1 (2025): APRIL | JTIE : Journal of Technology Informatics and Engineering Vol. 3 No. 3 (2024): December (Special Issue: Big Data Analytics) | JTIE: Journal of Technology Info Vol 3 No 2 (2024): Agustus : Journal of Technology Informatics and Engineering Vol. 3 No. 2 (2024): Agustus : Journal of Technology Informatics and Engineering Vol. 3 No. 1 (2024): April : Journal of Technology Informatics and Engineering Vol 3 No 1 (2024): April : Journal of Technology Informatics and Engineering Vol 2 No 3 (2023): December : Journal of Technology Informatics and Engineering Vol. 2 No. 3 (2023): December : Journal of Technology Informatics and Engineering Vol 2 No 2 (2023): August : Journal of Technology Informatics and Engineering Vol. 2 No. 2 (2023): August : Journal of Technology Informatics and Engineering Vol 2 No 1 (2023): April : Journal of Technology Informatics and Engineering Vol. 2 No. 1 (2023): April : Journal of Technology Informatics and Engineering Vol 1 No 3 (2022): Desember: Journal of Technology Informatics and Engineering Vol 1 No 3 (2022): December: Journal of Technology Informatics and Engineering Vol. 1 No. 3 (2022): December: Journal of Technology Informatics and Engineering Vol 1 No 2 (2022): Agustus: Journal of Technology Informatics and Engineering Vol. 1 No. 2 (2022): August: Journal of Technology Informatics and Engineering Vol 1 No 2 (2022): August: Journal of Technology Informatics and Engineering Vol. 1 No. 1 (2022): April: Journal of Technology Informatics and Engineering Vol 1 No 1 (2022): April: Journal of Technology Informatics and Engineering More Issue