A Bilevel Programming Framework for Joint Edge Resource Management and Pricing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The emerging edge computing (EC) paradigm promises to provide low latency and ubiquitous computation to numerous mobile and Internet of Things (IoT) devices at the network edge. How to efficiently allocate geographically distributed heterogeneous edge resources to a variety of services is a challenging task. While this problem has been studied extensively in recent years, most of the previous work has largely ignored the preferences of the services when making edge resource allocation decisions. To this end, this article introduces a novel bilevel optimization model, which explicitly takes the service preferences into consideration, to study the interaction between an EC platform and multiple services. The platform manages a set of edge nodes (ENs) and acts as the leader while the services are the followers. Given the service placement and resource pricing decisions of the leader, each service decides how to optimally divide its workload to different ENs. The proposed framework not only maximizes the profit of the platform but also minimizes the cost of every service. When there is a single EN, we derive a simple analytic solution for the underlying problem. For the general case with multiple ENs and multiple services, we present a Karush–Kuhn–Tucker-based solution and a duality-based solution, combining with a series of linearizations, to solve the bilevel problem. Extensive numerical results are shown to illustrate the efficacy of the proposed model.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".