MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2957978631 · doi:10.1109/icc.2019.8761239

Joint Task Offloading and Resource Allocation for Delay-Sensitive Fog Networks

2019· article· en· W2957978631 on OpenAlexaff
Mithun Mukherjee, Suman Kumar, Mohammad Shojafar, Qi Zhang, Constandinos X. Mavromoustakis

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicIoT and Edge/Fog Computing
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceCloud computingLatency (audio)ProvisioningEdge computingComputer networkNode (physics)Distributed computingFog computingOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Computational offloading becomes an important and essential research issue for the delay-sensitive task completion at resource-constraint end-users. Fog computing that extends the computing and storage resources of the cloud computing to the network edge emerges as a potential solution towards low-latency task provisioning via computational offloading. In our offloading scenario, each end-user will first offload the task to its primary fog node. When the primary fog node cannot meet the tolerable latency, it has the possibility to offload to the cloud and/or assisting fog node to obtain extra computing resource to shorten the computing latency at the expense of additional transmission latency. Therefore, a trade-off needs to be carefully made in the offloading decision. At the same time, in addition to the task data from the end-users under its primary coverage, the primary fog node receives the tasks from other end-users via its neighbor fog nodes. Thus, to jointly optimize the computing and communication resources in the fog node, we formulate a delay-sensitive data offloading problem that mainly considers the local task execution delay and transmission delay. An approximate solution is obtained via Quadratically Constraint Quadratic Programming (QCQP). Finally, the extensive simulation results demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed solution, while guaranteeing minimum end-to-end latency for various task processing densities and traffic intensity levels.

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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.199 · 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

Citations72
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicIoT and Edge/Fog ComputingFrench-language works237,207