Latency-Aware Strategies for Deploying Data Stream Processing Applications on Large Cloud-Edge Infrastructure
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
Internet of Things (IoT) applications often require the processing of data streams generated by devices dispersed over a large geographical area. Traditionally, these data streams are forwarded to a distant cloud for processing, thus resulting in high application end-to-end latency. Recent work explores the combination of resources located in clouds and at the edges of the Internet, called cloud-edge infrastructure, for deploying Data Stream Processing (DSP) applications. Most previous work, however, fails to scale to very large IoT settings. This paper introduces deployment strategies for the placement of Data Stream Processing (DSP) applications onto cloud-edge infrastructure. The strategies split an application graph into regions and consider regions with stringent time requirements for edge placement. The proposed Aggregate End-to-End Latency Strategy with Region Patterns and Latency Awareness (AELS+RP+LA) decreases the number of evaluated resources when computing an operator's placement by considering the communication overhead across computing resources. Simulation results show that, unlike the state-of-the-art, Aggregate End-to-End Latency Strategy with Region Patterns and Latency Awareness (AELS+RP+LA) scales to environments with more than 100k resources with negligible impact on the application end-to-end latency.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.002 | 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