An Online Incentive Mechanism for Collaborative Task Offloading in Mobile Edge Computing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper discusses incentive mechanism design for collaborative task offloading in mobile edge computing (MEC). Different from most existing work in the literature that was based on offline settings, in this paper, an online truthful mechanism integrating computation and communication resource allocation is proposed. In our system model, upon the arrival of a smartphone user who requests task offloading, the base station (BS) needs to make a decision right away without knowing any future information on i) whether to accept or reject this task offloading request and ii) if accepted, who to execute the task (the BS itself or nearby smartphone users called collaborators). By considering each task's specific requirements in terms of data size, delay, and preference, we formulate a social-welfare-maximization problem, which integrates collaborator selection, communication and computation resource allocation, transmission and computation time scheduling, as well as pricing policy design. To solve this complicated problem, a novel online mechanism is proposed based on the primal-dual optimization framework. Theoretical analyses show that our mechanism can guarantee feasibility, truthfulness, and computational efficiency (competitive ratio of 3). We further use comprehensive simulations to validate our analyses and the properties of our proposed mechanism.
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 | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".