A Double Auction Mechanism for Resource Allocation in Coded Vehicular Edge Computing
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The development of smart vehicles and rich cloud services have led to the emergence of vehicular edge computing. To perform the distributed computation tasks efficiently, Coded Distributed Computing (CDC) was proposed to reduce communication costs and mitigate the straggler effects through the use of coding techniques. In this paper, we propose a double auction mechanism to allocate the resources of the edge servers to the vehicles in order to complete the CDC tasks. Specifically, the vehicles use the PolyDot codes to manage the tradeoff between communication costs and recovery threshold. Given the requirements of various vehicles, the double auction mechanism matches the edge servers with the required resources to the vehicles. Besides, the double auction mechanism also determines the prices that the vehicles need to pay for the resources of the edge servers. The analyses show that the double auction mechanism satisfies the properties of individual rationality, incentive compatibility and budget-balance. From the simulation, the utility of auctioneer increases when the number of vehicles and edge servers increases.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it