MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2920054549 · doi:10.1109/tetc.2019.2902661

Smart Resource Allocation for Mobile Edge Computing: A Deep Reinforcement Learning Approach

2019· article· en· W2920054549 on OpenAlexaff
Jiadai Wang, Lei Zhao, Jiajia Liu, Nei Kato

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Emerging Topics in Computing · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicIoT and Edge/Fog Computing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersFundamental Research Funds for the Central UniversitiesNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsComputer scienceMobile edge computingDistributed computingReinforcement learningServerResource allocationCloud computingEdge computingComputer networkMobile computingSoftware deploymentMobile deviceUtility computingArtificial intelligenceCloud computing securityOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The development of mobile devices with improving communication and perceptual capabilities has brought about a proliferation of numerous complex and computation-intensive mobile applications. Mobile devices with limited resources face more severe capacity constraints than ever before. As a new concept of network architecture and an extension of cloud computing, Mobile Edge Computing (MEC) seems to be a promising solution to meet this emerging challenge. However, MEC also has some limitations, such as the high cost of infrastructure deployment and maintenance, as well as the severe pressure that the complex and mutative edge computing environment brings to MEC servers. At this point, how to allocate computing resources and network resources rationally to satisfy the requirements of mobile devices under the changeable MEC conditions has become a great aporia. To combat this issue, we propose a smart, Deep Reinforcement Learning based Resource Allocation (DRLRA) scheme, which can allocate computing and network resources adaptively, reduce the average service time and balance the use of resources under varying MEC environment. Experimental results show that the proposed DRLRA performs better than the traditional OSPF algorithm in the mutative MEC conditions.

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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.245 · 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

Citations448
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Emerging Topics in ComputingSame topicIoT and Edge/Fog ComputingFrench-language works237,207