MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2883077902 · doi:10.1109/tnet.2019.2912077

A Market-Based Framework for Multi-Resource Allocation in Fog Computing

2019· article· en· W2883077902 on OpenAlexafffund
Duong Tung Nguyen, Long Bao Le, Vijay K. Bhargava

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicIoT and Edge/Fog Computing
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de la Recherche ScientifiqueUniversité du Québec à MontréalUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceDistributed computingResource allocationPreemptionIncentiveComputer networkMicroeconomicsEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fog computing is transforming the network edge into an intelligent platform by bringing storage, computing, control, and networking functions closer to end users, things, and sensors. How to allocate multiple resource types (e.g., CPU, memory, bandwidth) of capacity-limited heterogeneous fog nodes to competing services with diverse requirements and preferences in a fair and efficient manner is a challenging task. To this end, we propose a novel market-based resource allocation framework in which the services act as buyers and fog resources act as divisible goods in the market. The proposed framework aims to compute a market equilibrium (ME) solution at which every service obtains its favorite resource bundle under the budget constraint, while the system achieves high resource utilization. This paper extends the general equilibrium literature by considering a practical case of satiated utility functions. In addition, we introduce the notions of non-wastefulness and frugality for equilibrium selection and rigorously demonstrate that all the non-wasteful and frugal ME are the optimal solutions to a convex program. Furthermore, the proposed equilibrium is shown to possess salient fairness properties, including envy-freeness, sharing-incentive, and proportionality. Another major contribution of this paper is to develop a privacy-preserving distributed algorithm, which is of independent interest, for computing an ME while allowing market participants to obfuscate their private information. Finally, extensive performance evaluation is conducted to verify our theoretical analyses.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Citations75
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE/ACM Transactions on NetworkingSame topicIoT and Edge/Fog ComputingFrench-language works237,207