DeFog: Fog Computing Benchmarks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fog computing envisions that deploying services of an application across resources in the cloud and those located at the edge of the network may improve the overall performance of the application when compared to running the application on the cloud. However, there are currently no benchmarks that can directly compare the performance of the application across the cloud-only, edge-only and cloud-edge deployment platform to obtain any insight on performance improvement. This paper proposes DeFog, a first Fog benchmarking suite to: (i) alleviate the burden of Fog benchmarking by using a standard methodology, and (ii) facilitate the understanding of the target platform by collecting a catalogue of relevant metrics for a set of benchmarks. The current portfolio of DeFog benchmarks comprises six relevant applications conducive to using the edge. Experimental studies are carried out on multiple target platforms to demonstrate the use of DeFog for collecting metrics related to application latencies (communication and computation), for understanding the impact of stress and concurrent users on application latencies, and for understanding the performance of deploying different combination of services of an application across the cloud and edge. DeFog is available for public download (https://github.com/qub-blesson/DeFog).
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".