MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Optimal Multi-Decision Mobile Computation Offloading With Hard Task Deadlines

2019· article· en· W3003505034 on OpenAlexaff
Arvin Hekmati, Peyvand Teymoori, T.D. Todd, Dongmei Zhao, George Karakostasy

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicIoT and Edge/Fog Computing
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceUploadMarkov decision processComputation offloadingTask (project management)Mobile edge computingEnergy consumptionMarkov processComputationWirelessMobile deviceChannel (broadcasting)Distributed computingDynamic programmingOnline algorithmReal-time computingEnhanced Data Rates for GSM EvolutionEdge computingServerComputer networkAlgorithmArtificial intelligenceOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Multi-decision mobile computation offloading occurs when a task to be remotely executed is uploaded in separate parts. Since the upload is partitioned, separate decisions are needed to determine the best time to initiate each upload. The multi-decision problem is considered for the case where execution completion times are subject to hard deadline constraints and where task offloads occur over a Markovian wireless channel. An online energy-optimal computation offloading algorithm, Multiopt (Multi-decision online Optimum), is introduced, whose optimality is proven using Markovian stopping theory. The paper presents results using the Gilbert-Elliott channel model, where task completion time probabilities can be efficiently computed using Dynamic Programming. Although the proposed algorithm is proven to be energy optimal, its performance is also compared to four others, namely, Immediate Offloading, Channel Threshold, Local Execution, as well as optimal single-part offloading. Results show that the proposed algorithm can significantly improve mobile device energy consumption compared to the other approaches while guaranteeing hard task execution deadlines.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.628
Threshold uncertainty score0.700

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations11
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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