Application Component Placement in NFV-based Hybrid Cloud/Fog Systems with Mobile Fog Nodes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fog computing reduces the latency induced by distant clouds by enabling the deployment of some application components at the edge of the network, on fog nodes, while keeping others in the cloud. Application components can be implemented as Virtual Network Functions (VNFs) and their execution sequences can be modeled by a combination of sub-structures like sequence, parallel, selection, and loops. Efficient placement algorithms are required to map the application components onto the infrastructure nodes. Current solutions do not consider the mobility of fog nodes, a phenomenon which may happen in real systems. In this paper, we use the random waypoint mobility model for fog nodes to calculate the expected makespan and application execution cost. We then model the problem as an Integer Linear Programming (ILP) formulation which minimizes an aggregated weighted function of the makespan and cost. We propose a Tabu Search-based Component Placement (TSCP) algorithm to find sub-optimal placements. The results show that the proposed algorithm improves the makespan and the application execution cost.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".