Distributed Service Placement in Fog Computing: An Iterative Combinatorial Auction Approach
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A primary concern in fog computing is how to efficiently allocate limited fog resources to applications with diverse resource requirements. In fog computing, applications that consist of a set of interdependent microservices are mapped to computing and communication devices, referred to as fog nodes. While placement of microservices can be done centrally, the essentially decentralized infrastructure of participating end-user devices motivates the search for distributed solutions. In this paper, we present a distributed placement strategy that seeks to optimize energy consumption and communication costs. We devise a game-theoretic approximation method that is inspired by an iterative combinatorial auction. By properly restricting the types of bids that can be made in an auction, we can avoid the need for a centralized auctioneer. We devise a fully distributed service placement algorithm without central coordination or global state information. The algorithm operates in rounds, where the number of rounds is bounded by the number of applications and the total number of microservices. Numerical examples show that our placement algorithm outperforms existing heuristics in terms of efficiency and network utilization while achieving comparable utilization and load balancing.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it