发表机构
University of Cambridge; TU Berlin（剑桥大学; 柏林工业大学）
机构由 AI 辅助整理，请以论文原文为准。AI 中文总结
本文提出调和SCI（rSCI）指标，通过残差将自底向上能源估算与云提供商自顶向下报告关联，以兼顾优化激励与问责，并指出当前报告需改进以支持实践。
AI 中文摘要
寻求减少其云应用碳足迹的组织必须依赖两种在很大程度上互不关联的测量方式，每种方式都有重要的局限性。像软件碳强度（SCI）这样的自底向上指标为碳感知优化提供了信号，但租户缺乏核算许多供应商侧开销所需的信息。云提供商的自顶向下报告提供了对租户碳足迹更全面的视图，但粒度较粗且方法论不透明。由于这两种方法在范围与报告频率上存在差异，当前的技术水平将它们视为解耦的：自底向上指标用于优化，自顶向下报告用于企业披露。我们认为这两种信号应该是可调和的。一个每工作负载指标，如果其改进从未在提供商的审计报告中体现，就不会被大规模采用用于问责。我们调查了云碳核算的技术现状，并提出了一种调和SCI（rSCI）的愿景：一种每工作负载指标，通过残差将自底向上的能源估算重新锚定到云提供商的自顶向下报告。通过根据其物理驱动因素分解和分配该残差，rSCI可以保留运营激励，同时将闲置容量和隐含碳归因于驱动它们的工作负载。我们表明，当今的自顶向下报告仍然过于粗略且方法论不一致，无法支持可信的调和，并提出了提供商报告和标准方面的具体步骤以使其切实可行。
英文摘要
Organizations seeking to reduce the carbon footprint of their cloud applications must rely on two largely disconnected ways of measuring it, each with important limitations. Bottom-up metrics like Software Carbon Intensity (SCI) provide signals for carbon-aware optimization, but tenants lack the information needed to account for many provider-side overheads. Top-down reports by cloud providers provide a more comprehensive view of a tenant's carbon footprint but are coarse and methodologically opaque. Because the two approaches differ in scope and reporting frequency, the current state of the art treats them as decoupled: bottom-up metrics for optimization, top-down reports for corporate disclosure. We argue that the two signals should be reconcilable. A per-workload metric whose improvements never surface in the provider's audited report will not be adopted for accountability at scale. We survey the state of the art in cloud carbon accounting and propose a vision for reconciled SCI (rSCI): a per-workload metric that re-anchors a bottom-up energy estimate to the cloud provider's top-down report through a residual. By decomposing and allocating this residual according to its physical drivers, rSCI can preserve operational incentives while also attributing idle capacity and embodied carbon to the workloads that drive them. We show that today's top-down reporting is still too coarse and methodologically inconsistent to support credible reconciliation and lay out concrete steps in provider reporting and standards to make it practical.
