MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3012443826 · doi:10.1049/iet-com.2019.1214

Delta compression optimisation for UAV‐enabled mobile edge caching

2020· article· en· W3012443826 on OpenAlexaff
Zhijuan Hu, Danyang Wang, Zan Li, Junling Li, Yuan Gao

Bibliographic record

VenueIET Communications · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Image and Video Retrieval Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceEncoding (memory)Enhanced Data Rates for GSM EvolutionReal-time computingRedundancy (engineering)CacheData compressionGreedy algorithmHash functionAlgorithmComputer networkArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs)‐based sensor network is an effective mechanism for recognising and tracking of manoeuvring targets as well as expanding the monitoring coverage in the battlefield. However, there exists redundancy among the spectrum data collected by a UAV monitor within a data collection period, which may waste storage space and reduce the speed of data uploaded to the control centre. The authors assume that each UAV is equipped with an edge computing server and propose a delta compression method, which can save cache space and transfer time. First, they present a cost model and evaluation model for delta compression of the COPY/ADD class. Then an optimisation problem is formulated aiming to obtain the optimal delta encoding. Additionally, a maximal total length of copied fragments (MTLC) algorithm is proposed to find more mutually separated L ‐grams common fragments between the data collected at two adjacent moments. Theoretical analysis proves that the MTLC algorithm can generate a good delta encoding with the maximum total length and then the minimum total number of the COPYs. Moreover, numerical results show that MTLC has better performance in constructing a good delta encoding than the simple greedy and hash suffix array delta algorithms.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.686
Threshold uncertainty score0.413

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 science0.0020.001
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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIET CommunicationsSame topicAdvanced Image and Video Retrieval TechniquesFrench-language works237,207