MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Opportunistic Coded Distributed Computing: An Evolutionary Game Approach

2021· article· en· W3191391565 on OpenAlexaff
Yue Han, Dusit Niyato, Cyril Leung, Dong In Kim

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputability, Logic, AI Algorithms
Canadian institutionsBC Research (Canada)
FundersNational Research Foundation of KoreaNational Research Foundation Singapore
KeywordsComputer scienceDistributed computing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Task offloading has been proposed and studied to overcome the problem of energy and computation constrained terminals. Computationally intensive tasks are often parallelable, and therefore the execution time can be further improved via a coded distributed computing (CDC) approach, as CDC offers robustness against stragglers by introducing redundant computational tasks. In this paper, we study a user-centric task offloading problem, in which the edge performs the of-floaded computation with CDC. Furthermore, the extent of the straggler's effect on servers is also unknown to the user. This requires users to explore server and code settings of the CDC, and “opportunistically” select the best combo to maximize the utility. For simplicity, we refer to this scenario as opportunistic coded distributed computing. We formulate the problem as an evolutionary game in which each user is self-interested. The payoff is calculated based on the monetary cost of CDC-as-a-Service and total delay, weighted by user-defined parameter values. For the game solution, an evolutionary stable equilibrium (ESS) is used, i.e., probabilistic joint selection of server and code configuration. To obtain the ESS, we present an iterative algorithm based on the revision protocol. A theoretical analysis of equilibrium in terms of existence, uniqueness, stationarity, and stability is provided. Numerical simulations are conducted to support the theoretical findings and the adaption of equilibrium states to the hyper-parameters.

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)0.001
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Citations6
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicComputability, Logic, AI AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207