Mobility-Aware Latency-Efficient Cache Placement in Mobile Edge Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Future mobile services and applications are bounded by user location, data, and network. These services will suffer from poor support from wireless networks due to the huge amount of mobile traffic and user mobility. The demand for contents by these services results in constraints put on latency and quality of service (QoS). Considering these problems, researchers investigated caching contents locally and proactively at the edge of the mobile edge networks (MENs). In this work, we proposed new formulation of mobility-aware latency-efficient cache placement problem for mobile edge networks (MENs) taking into account different storage capacities, users mobility, content popularity, contact probability, and latency to download the contents to user terminals (UTs). Our formulated multi-objective optimization problem aims to maximize the cache hit rate. We apply weighted-sum decision theory approach to model the decision of placing contents at the edge of the network. Simulation results are shown to gain insight of the impact of different factors on our proposed system and and evaluated the results with three other cache placement techniques.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".