MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2896060371 · doi:10.1109/tcc.2018.2874484

On the Planning and Design Problem of Fog Computing Networks

2018· article· en· W2896060371 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Cloud Computing · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicIoT and Edge/Fog Computing
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCloud computingComputer scienceMathematical optimizationNode (physics)Linear programmingOptimization problemFunction (biology)AlgorithmMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper proposes an exact model for the planning and design problem of fog networks. More precisely, a mathematical model is proposed to simultaneously determine the optimal location, the capacity and the number of fog node(s) as well as the interconnection between the installed fog nodes and the cloud. The goal of the model is to minimize the delay in the network and the amount of traffic sent to the cloud data center. To address this multi-objective optimization problem, three optimization techniques are used: the weighted sum, the hierarchical and the trade-off methods. The weighted sum method aggregates all the lone objective functions into a single objective by applying a weighted vector. The hierarchical method takes a sequential approach by tightly constraining the more important objective function. The trade-off method solves a single objective function and translates all other objective functions into constraints. These methods are then compared in terms of average delay, amount of traffic sent to the cloud and amount of CPU time required to find optimal solution(s). Since we are dealing with a multi-objective optimization problem and that multiple optimal solutions can be found, the fuzzy-based mechanism and the hypervolume indicator have been used. Computational results show that as the problem size increases, the delay and the traffic also increase in a linear form; whereas, the solution time increases in non-polynomial time. The weighted sum method was able to achieve the best trade-off results for the delay and the traffic, whereas the hierarchical method was able to return minimum delay but with worse traffic going to the cloud. As the model considers realistic edge device traffic parameters, constraints, and various topology aspects, it can be helpful for the planning and deployment of fog networks and how they operate within a cloud infrastructure.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
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 score0.861
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.223 · 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