MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

An Optimal Model for Optimizing the Placement and Parallelism of Data Stream Processing Applications on Cloud-Edge Computing

2020· preprint· en· W3082511424 on OpenAlexaff
Felipe Rodrigo de Souza, Marcos Dias de Assunção, Eddy Caron, Alexandre da Silva Veith

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicIoT and Edge/Fog Computing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCloud computingComputer scienceStream processingDistributed computingEdge computingSoftware deploymentData stream miningData parallelismEdge deviceLatency (audio)Enhanced Data Rates for GSM EvolutionData streamParallelism (grammar)Integer programmingData processingParallel computingAlgorithmDatabaseOperating systemData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Internet of Things has enabled many application scenarios where a large number of connected devices generate unbounded streams of data, often processed by data stream processing frameworks deployed in the cloud. Edge computing enables offloading processing from the cloud and placing it close to where the data is generated, thereby reducing the time to process data events and deployment costs. However, edge resources are more computationally constrained than their cloud counterparts, raising two interrelated issues, namely deciding on the parallelism of processing tasks (a.k.a. operators) and their mapping onto available resources. In this work, we formulate the scenario of operator placement and parallelism as an optimal mixed-integer linear programming problem. The proposed model is termed as Cloud-Edge data Stream Placement (CESP). Experimental results using discrete-event simulation demonstrate that CESP can achieve an end-to-end latency at least ≃ 80% and monetary costs at least ≃ 30% better than traditional cloud deployment.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.205
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0030.005
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 head0.128
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.225 · 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

Citations16
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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