MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Efficient Task Allocation for Mobile Crowd Sensing Based on Evolutionary Computing

2018· article· en· W2948457221 on OpenAlexaff
Xi Tao, Wei Song

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMobile Crowdsensing and Crowdsourcing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceTask (project management)Flexibility (engineering)CrossoverBig dataCluster analysisGenetic algorithmKey (lock)Distributed computingProcess (computing)Optimization problemArtificial intelligenceData miningMachine learningAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mobile crowd sensing (MCS) offers a promising paradigm for big data collection in a large scale. It leverages the power of mobile smart devices, and shows various advantages over traditional sensing networks, such as high energy efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and flexibility. A key problem in MCS is to efficiently allocate distributed tasks to mobile users (MUs) while addressing various constraints, e.g., in terms of the quality of sensed data and collection cost. In this paper, we further take into account the clustering effect of sensing tasks and propose an efficient approach to solve the NP-hard task allocation problem. In our solution, a variant genetic algorithm (GA) is utilized to maximize the task complete ratio and balance the sensed data among tasks while respecting the MUs' constraints. Considering the unique characteristics of the task allocation problem, we divide the crossover and mutation process of the GA into two steps. First, an available subset of tasks is selected for each MU. Then, a feasible travelling path is designed over this subset of tasks in the second step. The simulation results show that the proposed GA-based solution significantly outperforms the baseline solution in terms of task complete ratio and data balance.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.713
Threshold uncertainty score0.648

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations6
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMobile Crowdsensing and CrowdsourcingFrench-language works237,207