MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3025279013 · doi:10.1109/tvt.2020.2995146

Task Scheduling for Mobile Edge Computing Using Genetic Algorithm and Conflict Graphs

2020· article· en· W3025279013 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicIoT and Edge/Fog Computing
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceServerMobile edge computingScheduling (production processes)Latency (audio)Distributed computingEdge computingParallel computingAlgorithmEnhanced Data Rates for GSM EvolutionComputer networkMathematical optimizationMathematicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we consider parallel and sequential task offloading to multiple mobile edge computing servers. The task consists of a set of inter-dependent sub-tasks, which are scheduled to servers to minimize both offloading latency and failure probability. Two algorithms are proposed to solve the scheduling problem, which are based on genetic algorithm and conflict graph models, respectively. Simulation results show that these algorithms provide performance close to the optimal solution, which is obtained through exhaustive search. Furthermore, although parallel offloading uses orthogonal channels, results demonstrate that the sequential offloading yields a reduced offloading failure probability when compared to the parallel offloading. On the other hand, parallel offloading provides less latency. However, as the dependency among sub-tasks increases, the latency gap between parallel and sequential schemes decreases.

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 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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.864
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.233 · 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