MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1524725909 · doi:10.1109/icc.2015.7248815

Energy efficient offloading for competing users on a shared communication channel

2015· article· en· W1524725909 on OpenAlexaff
Erfan Meskar, T.D. Todd, Dongmei Zhao, George Karakostas

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicIoT and Edge/Fog Computing
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceNash equilibriumUploadCloud computingEnergy consumptionChannel (broadcasting)Base stationServerComputation offloadingGame theoryComputer networkDistributed computingMathematical optimizationEdge computingOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper we consider mobile users that employ computation offloading. In computational offloading, users can reduce energy consumption by executing jobs on a remote cloud server, rather than locally. In order to execute a job in the cloud, a mobile user must upload the job over a base station channel which is shared by all of the uploading users. The jobs are subject to hard deadline constraints, and since the channel quality may be different for each user, this may restrict the users ability to reduce energy usage. The system is modelled as a competitive game where each user is interested in minimizing its own energy use. The game is subject to the real-time constraints imposed by job execution deadlines, user specific channel bit rates, and the competition over the shared communication channel. The paper shows that for known classes of parameters, a game where each user independently adjusts its offload decisions always has a pure Nash equilibrium, and a Gauss-Seidel-like method for determining this equilibrium is presented. Results are then presented which illustrate that the system always converges to a Nash equilibrium using Gauss-Seidel. Data is presented which show the number of Nash equilibria that are found, the number of iterations required, and the quality of the solutions obtained. In particular, we find that the solutions perform well compared to a lower bound on total energy performance.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.061
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.207 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations36
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicIoT and Edge/Fog ComputingFrench-language works237,207