MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2761125797 · doi:10.1109/comst.2017.2758763

Integration of Networking, Caching, and Computing in Wireless Systems: A Survey, Some Research Issues, and Challenges

2017· article· en· W2761125797 on OpenAlexafffund
Chenmeng Wang, Ying He, F. Richard Yu, Qianbin Chen, Lun Tang

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCaching and Content Delivery
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsComputer scienceScalabilitySoftware deploymentDistributed computingWirelessOpen researchLatency (audio)Computer networkTelecommunicationsWorld Wide WebDatabase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since the recently emerging mobile applications have posed significant demands not only on high data rate but also on high caching and computing capabilities, the growth in communication capability alone is no longer sustainable for wireless networks. The integration of networking, caching, and computing functionalities into one system can provide not only native support for highly scalable and efficient content retrieval, but also powerful capability of data processing, hence reducing duplicate content transmissions and enabling swift executions of computationally intensive tasks. Despite the prospect of integrated networking, caching, and computing systems, a number of significant research challenges remain to be addressed prior to widespread deployment of integrated networking, caching, and computing systems, including latency requirement, interfaces, mobility management, resource and architecture tradeoffs, convergence, etc. In this paper, we provide a brief survey on some of the works that have been done to enable the integrated networking, caching, and computing system, and discuss several research challenges. We identify a number of important aspects of the integration of networking, caching, and computing: motivations, frameworks, performance metrics, enabling technologies, and challenges. At last, some broader perspectives are explored.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.009
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.323
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.085 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations145
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Communications Surveys & TutorialsSame topicCaching and Content DeliveryFrench-language works237,207