MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2762030451 · doi:10.1109/cscita.2017.8066564

Optimization of device selection in a Mobile Ad-hoc cloud based on composition score

2017· article· en· W2762030451 on OpenAlexaff
Venkatraman Balasubramanian, Faisal Zaman, Ahmed Karmouch

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicIoT and Edge/Fog Computing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceCloud computingReachabilityDistributed computingScheduling (production processes)Task (project management)Wireless ad hoc networkMobile deviceMobile ad hoc networkProcess (computing)Computer networkOperating systemWirelessTheoretical computer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While tapping onto the mobile device capabilities for execution of resource intensive tasks, it has been proven by many studies that the local device resources are unable to completely perform the task execution. Therefore, it becomes imperative that the intra-device resources are put to productive use by offloading the jobs to a remote location for execution. However, in those settings where the network infrastructure is either expensive or inconvenient to use, the traditional cloud would be beyond reachability. This gave rise to the novel “on-the-fly” forms of computing that enables a computation environment closest to the user like a Mobile Ad-hoc Cloud (MAC). Nevertheless, by following this strategy there are more complex unprecedented problems such as constant device movements, disruptions in the external device to name a few that needs to be addressed. Hence, this paper draws attention to the task scheduling process in an MAC. We propose a linear Programming based model to minimize the number of devices participating in an ad-hoc cloud composition by delineating major constraints. In doing so, it is our endeavor to provide a faster ad-hoc cloud composition formation, which leads to quicker task execution in an MAC.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.727
Threshold uncertainty score0.312

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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