Application Component Placement in NFV-based Hybrid Cloud/Fog Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Applications are sets of interacting components that can be executed in sequence, in parallel, or by using more complex constructs such as selections and loops. They can, therefore, be modeled as structured graphs with sub-structures consisting of these constructs. Fog computing can reduce the latency induced by distant clouds by enabling the deployment of some components at the edge of the network (i.e., closer to end-devices) while keeping others in the cloud. Network Functions Virtualization (NFV) decouples software from hardware and enables an agile deployment of network services and applications as Virtual Network Functions (VNFs). In NFV settings, efficient placement algorithms are required to map the structured graphs representing the VNF Forwarding Graphs (VNF-FGs) onto the infrastructure of the hybrid cloud/fog system. Only deterministic graphs with sequence and parallel sub-structures have been considered thus to date. However, several real-life applications do require non-deterministic graphs with sub-structures as selections and loops. This paper focuses on application component placement in NFV-based hybrid cloud/fog systems, with the assumption that the graph representing the application is non-deterministic. The objective is to minimize an aggregated weighted function of makespan and cost. The problem is modeled as an Integer Linear Programming (ILP) and evaluated over small-scale scenarios using the CPLEX optimization tool.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".