An Adaptive Mechanism for Dynamically Collaborative Computing Power and Task Scheduling in Edge Environment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Edge computing can provide high bandwidth and low-latency service for big data tasks by leveraging the edge side’s computing, storage, and network resources. With the development of microservice and docker technology, service providers can flexibly and dynamically cache microservice at the edge side to respond efficiently with limited resources. Automatically caching needed services on the nearest edge nodes and dynamically scheduling users’ requests can realize that computing power and software services flow with the users to provide continuous services. However, achieving the goal needs to overcome many challenges, such as the significant fluctuation of user devices’ requests at the edge side and the lack of collaboration among edge nodes. In this article, dynamic computing power scheduling and collaborative task scheduling among edge nodes are comprehensively developed. The problem is considered a multiobjective optimization problem, including sequentially minimizing the deadline missing rate of requests and the average task completion time. We propose an adaptive mechanism for dynamically collaborative computing power and task scheduling (ADCS) in the edge environment to solve this problem. It adopts the greedy decision method to schedule computing tasks to meet their deadline requirements. At the same time, it uses the best-fit method to adjust the computing resources according to the changes of users’ requests. The simulation results show that ADCS can decrease the deadline missing rate and reduce the average completion time. Compared with DSR and CoDSR, the deadline missing rate is reduced by 59.91% and 19.95%, respectively. The average completion time is decreased by 37.87% and 6.71%.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".