MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2142292542 · doi:10.1002/ett.2967

AGILE: A terminal energy efficient scheduling method in mobile cloud computing

2015· article· en· W2142292542 on OpenAlexaff
Chao Chen, Weidong Bao, Xiaomin Zhu, Haoran Ji, Wenhua Xiao

Bibliographic record

VenueTransactions on Emerging Telecommunications Technologies · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicIoT and Edge/Fog Computing
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsComputer scienceCloud computingMobile cloud computingTerminal (telecommunication)Agile software developmentScheduling (production processes)Distributed computingEmbedded systemOperating systemComputer networkEngineeringSoftware engineeringOperations management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract With the development of mobile telecommunication technology, mobile phones have become a necessary tool in daily life and provided us many conveniences. Meanwhile, the huge number of cell phones constitute a potential high performance data processing system, called mobile cloud computing, to strengthen capacity for individual devices. Many researchers have studied about the architectures and scheduling algorithms of mobile cloud computing. However, little work has been performed about how to schedule mobile application tasks in data centers to extend battery life for mobile terminals. To address this issue, we investigate agent models, mobile energy consumption models and data transmission models under different connection environments. Based on which, we propose a novel terminal energy efficient scheduling method (AGILE for short). AGILE compares energy consumption in cloud execution and mobile execution according to the actual wireless environment, then makes energy‐efficient decisions. Extensive experiments are conducted to evaluate the performance of the AGILE under different wireless channels, and the performance impact on different parameters are studied. The experimental results indicate that the proposed method can save mobile devices' energy effectively. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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)0.001
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.282 · 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

Citations7
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransactions on Emerging Telecommunications TechnologiesSame topicIoT and Edge/Fog ComputingFrench-language works237,207