MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Optimizing the Allocation of Secure Fog Resources based on QoS Requirements

2021· article· en· W3184980539 on OpenAlexaff
Keith Massey, Nadia Moazen, Talal Halabi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicIoT and Edge/Fog Computing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Winnipeg
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceProvisioningScalabilityQuality of serviceComputer securityResource allocationSecurity serviceContext (archaeology)Fog computingCloud computingService (business)Distributed computingComputer networkInternet of ThingsInformation securityDatabase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fog computing plays a critical role in the provisioning of computing tasks in the context of Internet of Things (IoT) services. However, the security of IoT services against breaches and attacks relies heavily on the security of fog resources, which must be properly implemented and managed. Increasing security investments and integrating the security aspect into the core processes and operations of fog computing including resource management will increase IoT service protection as well as the trustworthiness of fog service providers. However, this requires careful modeling of the security requirements of IoT services as well as theoretical and experimental evaluation of the tradeoff between security and performance in fog infrastructures. To this end, this paper explores a new model for fog resource allocation according to security and Quality of Service (QoS). The problem is modeled as a multi-objective linear optimization problem and solved using conventional, off-the-shelf optimizers by applying the preemptive method. Specifically, two objective functions were defined: one representing the satisfaction of the security design requirements of IoT services and another that models the communication delay among the different virtual machines belonging to the same service request, which might be deployed on different intermediary fog nodes. The simulation results show that the optimization is efficient and achieves the required level of scalability in fog computing. Moreover, a tradeoff needs to be pondered between the two criteria during the resource allocation process.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.877
Threshold uncertainty score0.198

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations6
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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