User Preference Aware Task Coordination and Proactive Bandwidth Allocation in a FiWi-Based Human–Agent–Robot Teamwork Ecosystem
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cooperative human–agent–robot teamwork (HART) provides enormous opportunities for present-day human users to orchestrate their real-time tasks in a coordinated fashion. However, given human users’ different preferences for real-time HART task execution, e.g., lower delay and monetary cost, the selection of proper task coordination services has emerged as an important research problem by taking dynamically changing cloud agent/robot resources, network bandwidth utilization, as well as delay-sensitive and delay-tolerant HART task properties into account. To cope with these challenges, in this paper, we explore the synergy between caching, computation, and communications for achieving cost-effective HART task execution. To exploit the locality of different HART-centric tasks and local/non-local cloud agent/robot resources for different HART-centric task execution, we consider integrated fiber-wireless (FiWi) enhanced networks with computation task offloading as well as fiber backhaul sharing and WiFi offloading capabilities. More precisely, to minimize task execution delay and monetary cost, we propose a user preference aware HART task coordination framework that selects the appropriate dedicated or non-dedicated robot and cloud agent for given caching and computing HART task execution requirements. Further, to cope with varying bandwidth resources, we propose a proactive bandwidth allocation policy for the execution of both delay-sensitive and delay-tolerant HART tasks execution across FiWi enhanced network infrastructures. We evaluate the performance of our proposed preference aware task offloading scheme and compare it to various baseline schemes in terms of different key performance indicators, including the task execution time and monetary cost saving ratio, communication to computation ratio, and offloading gain overhead ratio. Our findings indicate that the proposed delay cost saving policy exhibits a 27% higher task execution time saving ratio and a 48% lower monetary cost saving ratio than the proposed monetary cost saving policy in a typical scenario.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".