MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2897259931 · doi:10.1155/2018/8267838

A Survey on Mobile Edge Computing: Focusing on Service Adoption and Provision

2018· article· en· W2897259931 on OpenAlexafffund
Kai Peng, Victor C. M. Leung, Xiaolong Xu, Lixin Zheng, Jiabin Wang, Qingjia Huang

Bibliographic record

VenueWireless Communications and Mobile Computing · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicIoT and Edge/Fog Computing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersQuanzhou City Science and Technology ProgramUniversity of British ColumbiaChina Scholarship CouncilHuaqiao UniversityNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaNatural Science Foundation of Fujian ProvinceNational Science Foundation
KeywordsComputer scienceCloud computingMobile edge computingMobile cloud computingEdge computingComputer networkService (business)Mobile deviceData as a serviceEnhanced Data Rates for GSM EvolutionMobile computingEdge deviceUtility computingDistributed computingOperating systemCloud computing securityTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mobile cloud computing (MCC) integrates cloud computing (CC) into mobile networks, prolonging the battery life of the mobile users (MUs). However, this mode may cause significant execution delay. To address the delay issue, a new mode known as mobile edge computing (MEC) has been proposed. MEC provides computing and storage service for the edge of network, which enables MUs to execute applications efficiently and meet the delay requirements. In this paper, we present a comprehensive survey of the MEC research from the perspective of service adoption and provision. We first describe the overview of MEC, including the definition, architecture, and service of MEC. After that we review the existing MUs‐oriented service adoption of MEC, i.e., offloading. More specifically, the study on offloading is divided into two key taxonomies: computation offloading and data offloading. In addition, each of them is further divided into single MU offloading scheme and multi‐MU offloading scheme. Then we survey edge server‐ (ES‐) oriented service provision, including technical indicators, ES placement, and resource allocation. In addition, other issues like applications on MEC and open issues are investigated. Finally, we conclude the paper.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.016
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.006
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.262 · 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

Citations99
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWireless Communications and Mobile ComputingSame topicIoT and Edge/Fog ComputingFrench-language works237,207