MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3166555174 · doi:10.1109/jiot.2021.3085143

Incentive-Driven Task Allocation for Collaborative Edge Computing in Industrial Internet of Things

2021· article· en· W3166555174 on OpenAlexaff
Wenjing Hou, Hong Wen, Ning Zhang, Jinsong Wu, Wenxin Lei, Runhui Zhao

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Internet of Things Journal · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicIoT and Edge/Fog Computing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
FundersNational Key Research and Development Program of China
KeywordsComputer scienceServerIncentiveEdge computingDistributed computingThe InternetLatency (audio)Task analysisTask (project management)Computer networkEnhanced Data Rates for GSM EvolutionArtificial intelligenceTelecommunicationsWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Residing in the proximity of end devices, edge computing (EC) holds great potential to provide low-latency, energy-efficient, and secure services, which has become an essential part of the Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT). To future accelerate task processing and reduce service latency, this work proposes an online incentive-driven task allocation scheme to stimulate collaborative computing among EC servers and IIoT devices. To better serve dynamic and heterogeneous tasks in terms of profiles and importance, EC servers (including neighboring servers) and IIoT devices with available resources can cooperatively process the tasks. Considering the heterogeneity of computing resources in edge servers and industrial IoT devices, we formulate a task allocation problem, which is NP hard. An online incentive-driven task allocation algorithm is proposed to this NP-hard problem, which will optimize task assignment strategies to maximize system utility, promote faster computing, and stimulate collaborative computing. Theoretical analyses show that the online incentive algorithm can satisfy incentive compatibility, individual rationality, computational efficiency, and feasibility. The results demonstrate that the proposed task allocation scheme with collaborative EC achieves superior performance and effectiveness.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations50
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Internet of Things JournalSame topicIoT and Edge/Fog ComputingFrench-language works237,207