MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Resource Allocation for Mobile Blockchain: A Hierarchical Combinatorial Auction Approach

2019· article· en· W3009657980 on OpenAlexaff
Shan Li, Kun Zhu, Yuanyuan Xu, Ran Wang, Yanchao Zhao

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBlockchain Technology Applications and Security
Canadian institutionsNovelis (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceMobile edge computingBlockchainDistributed computingMobile cloud computingCloud computingMobile computingServerResource allocationComputer networkComputer securityOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As a decentralized ledger to record all transaction information, blockchain can be applied to address the security and privacy issues in mobile application system. We term the blockchain applied to mobile applications as mobile blockchain. The mining process in mobile blockchain requires high computing capacity and energy which could overwhelm that mobile devices can offer. In this case, mobile edge computing servers (MESs) can be involved to offer computation services to miners in mobile blockchain. Note that the resources of MESs are also limited, MESs could further request resources from the cloud computing server (CCS). Accordingly, in this paper, both mobile edge computing and cloud computing are considered to support the mobile blockchain applications which makes the problem a hierarchical one. Naturally, the issue of hierarchical resource allocation arises. And a hierarchical combinatorial auction model is proposed to solve this problem, based on which an efficient and truthful framework is provided. Specifically, we formulate winner determination problems (WDPs) for mobile edge computing service providers and cloud computing service provider, and computationally tractable algorithms to address both problems are proposed. Finally, numerical analysis shows the effectiveness of the proposed scheme.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.856
Threshold uncertainty score0.410

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations5
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBlockchain Technology Applications and SecurityFrench-language works237,207