MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Modeling Real-Time Application Processor Scheduling for Fog Computing

2021· article· en· W3203990848 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDistributed and Parallel Computing Systems
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceCloud computingScheduling (production processes)Edge computingDistributed computingFair-share schedulingInteger programmingTwo-level schedulingParallel computingRate-monotonic schedulingFIFO (computing and electronics)Fixed-priority pre-emptive schedulingReal-time computingMathematical optimizationAlgorithmQuality of serviceOperating systemComputer network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a model for fog computing by considering the processing nodes of both edge and cloud devices for real-time applications. We use mixed-integer linear programming (MILP) mathematical model to find the optimal task scheduling and compare it with the performance of the FIFO online scheduling strategies for a fog computing sample that consists of n edge processors (EP) and one cloud processor. The MILP mathematical dispatching strategy optimizes the jobs' scheduling on the EPs and cloud processors. Finally, solving the model and simulation of more scenarios is presented to compare the performance of the optimized job scheduling model with two FIFO scenarios for a real-time application on fog computing. The results show that the FIFO process scheduling strategy's performance is between 62.71% to 95.10% of the optimal jobs' scheduling proposed in this work for the real-time fog computing-based applications.

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 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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.660
Threshold uncertainty score0.536

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.251 · 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