MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2912715275 · doi:10.1109/tnsm.2019.2894955

Optimized Provisioning of Edge Computing Resources With Heterogeneous Workload in IoT Networks

2019· article· en· W2912715275 on OpenAlexafffund
Nouha Kherraf, Hyame Assem Alameddine, Sanaa Sharafeddine, Chadi Assi, Ali Ghrayeb

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Network and Service Management · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicIoT and Edge/Fog Computing
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceServerDistributed computingProvisioningEdge computingDimensioningComputer networkMobile edge computingEnhanced Data Rates for GSM EvolutionWorkloadOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The proliferation of smart connected Internet of Things (IoT) devices is bringing tremendous challenges in meeting the performance requirement of their supported real-time applications due to their limited resources in terms of computing, storage, and battery life. In addition, the considerable amount of data they generate brings extra burden to the existing wireless network infrastructure. By enabling distributed computing and storage capabilities at the edge of the network, multi-access edge computing (MEC) serves delay sensitive, computationally intensive applications. Managing the heterogeneity of the workload generated by IoT devices, especially in terms of computing and delay requirements, while being cognizant of the cost to network operators, requires an efficient dimensioning of the MEC-enabled network infrastructure. Hence, in this paper, we study and formulate the problem of MEC resource provisioning and workload assignment for IoT services (RPWA) as a mixed integer program to jointly decide on the number and the location of edge servers and applications to deploy, in addition to the workload assignment. Given its complexity, we propose a decomposition approach to solve it which consists of decomposing RPWA into the delay aware load assignment sub-problem and the mobile edge servers dimensioning sub-problem. We analyze the effectiveness of the proposed algorithm through extensive simulations and highlight valuable performance trends and trade-offs as a function of various system parameters.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.190 · 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

Citations108
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Network and Service ManagementSame topicIoT and Edge/Fog ComputingFrench-language works237,207