Evaluation of the Employment of UAVs as Fog Nodes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In fog computing, processing, network, and storage resources are placed close to the end users to assure a low latency in comparison to the latency experienced when accessing services in the cloud. One limitation of this solution, however, is that fog nodes are usually fixed, whereas demands are variable over time at all locations, resulting in underutilization of the fog resources as well as unnecessary provisioning of fog resources. One way for dealing with this problem is the employment of mobile nodes to cope with the variability in resource demand. This paper studies how unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) equipped with processing capabilities can be used in this perspective, and proposes a solution to the fog node location problem considering both fixed and mobile nodes. It proposes the UAV Fog Node Location (UFL) algorithm to evaluate potential replacements of fixed servers by UAVs. The proposed algorithm can be used for long term planning under the assumption of changes in the prices of UAVs. An evaluation of the problem using data generated by real mobile users shows that UAVs can improve the design of future fog networks. This work has been submitted to the IEEE for possible publication. Copyright may be transferred without notice, after which this version may no longer be accessible.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".