FoGMatch: An Intelligent Multi-Criteria IoT-Fog Scheduling Approach Using Game Theory
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
Cloud computing has long been the main backbone that Internet of Things (IoT) devices rely on to accommodate their storage and analytical needs. However, the fact that cloud systems are often located quite far from the IoT devices and the emergence of delay-critical IoT applications urged the need for extending the cloud architecture to support delay-critical services. Given that fog nodes possess low resource capabilities compared to the cloud, matching the IoT services to appropriate fog nodes while guaranteeing minimal delay for IoT services and efficient resource utilization on fog nodes becomes quite challenging. In this context, the main limitation of existing approaches is addressing the scheduling problem from one side perspective, i.e., either fog nodes or IoT devices. To address this problem, we propose in this paper a multi-criteria intelligent IoT-Fog scheduling approach using game theory. Our solution consists of designing (1) preference functions for the IoT and fog layers to enable them to rank each other based on several criteria latency and resource utilization and (2) centralized and distributed intelligent scheduling algorithms that capitalize on matching theory and consider the preferences of both parties. Simulation results reveal that our solution outperforms the two common Min-Min and Max-Min scheduling approaches in terms of IoT services execution makespan and fog nodes resource consolidation efficiency.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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