Model and Algorithms for the Planning of Fog Computing Networks
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fog computing has risen as a promising technology for augmenting the computational and storage capability of the end devices and edge networks. The urging issues in this networking paradigm are fog nodes planning, resources allocation, and offloading strategies. This paper aims to formulate a mathematical model which jointly tackles these issues. The goal of the model is to optimize the tradeoff (Pareto front) between the capital expenditure and the network delay. To solve this multiobjective optimization problem and obtain benchmark values, we first use the weighted sum method and two existing evolutionary algorithms (EAs), nondominated sorting genetic algorithm II and speed-constrained multiobjective particle swarm optimization. Then, inspired by those EAs, this paper proposes a new EAs, named particle swarm optimized nondominated sorting genetic algorithm, which combines the convergence and searching efficiency of the existing EAs. The effectiveness of the proposed algorithm is evaluated by the hypervolume and inverted generational distance indicators. The performance evaluation results show that the proposed model and algorithms can help the network planners in the deployment of fog networks to complement their existing computation and storage 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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it