MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4226019773 · doi:10.1109/jiot.2022.3205051

Reinforcement Learning Framework for Server Placement and Workload Allocation in Multiaccess Edge Computing

2022· article· en· W4226019773 on OpenAlexafffund
Anahita Mazloomi, Hani Sami, Jamal Bentahar, Hadi Otrok, Azzam Mourad

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Internet of Things Journal · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicIoT and Edge/Fog Computing
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsServerComputer scienceReinforcement learningEdge computingMarkov decision processDistributed computingCloud computingEnhanced Data Rates for GSM EvolutionOptimization problemComputer networkMarkov processArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cloud computing is a reliable solution to provide distributed computation power. However, real-time response is still challenging regarding the enormous amount of data generated by the IoT devices in 5G and 6G networks. Thus, multiaccess edge computing (MEC), which consists of distributing the edge servers in the proximity of end users to have low latency besides the higher processing power, is increasingly becoming a vital factor for the success of modern applications. This article addresses the problem of minimizing both, the network delay, which is the main objective of MEC, and the number of edge servers to provide a MEC design with minimum cost. This MEC design consists of edge servers placement and base stations allocation, which makes it a joint combinatorial optimization problem (COP). Recently, reinforcement learning (RL) has shown promising results for COPs. However, modeling real-world problems using RL when the state and action spaces are large still needs investigation. We propose a novel RL framework with an efficient representation and modeling of the state space, action space, and the penalty function in the design of the underlying Markov decision process (MDP) for solving our problem. This modeling makes the temporal difference (TD) learning applicable for a large-scale real-world problem while minimizing the cost of network design. We introduce the TD <inline-formula xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"> <tex-math notation="LaTeX">$(\lambda)$ </tex-math></inline-formula> with eligibility traces for minimizing the cost (TDMC) algorithm, in addition to <inline-formula xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"> <tex-math notation="LaTeX">$Q$ </tex-math></inline-formula> -learning for the same problem (QMC) when <inline-formula xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"> <tex-math notation="LaTeX">$\lambda =0$ </tex-math></inline-formula> . Furthermore, we discuss the impact of state representation, action space, and penalty function on the convergence of each model. Extensive experiments using real-world data sets from Shanghai Telecommunication and Citywide Public Computer Centers demonstrate that in the light of an efficient model, TDMC/QMC are able to find the actions that are the source of lower delayed penalty. The reported results show that our algorithm outperforms the other benchmarks by creating a tradeoff among multiple objectives.

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 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)0.002
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.607
Threshold uncertainty score0.569

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
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 science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Internet of Things JournalSame topicIoT and Edge/Fog ComputingFrench-language works237,207