MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4226481759 · doi:10.1109/access.2022.3167641

Parked Vehicles Task Offloading in Edge Computing

2022· article· en· W4226481759 on OpenAlexafffund
Khoa Nguyen, Steve Drew, Changcheng Huang, Jiayu Zhou

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Access · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicIoT and Edge/Fog Computing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryCarleton University
FundersOffice of Naval ResearchNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of CalgaryNational Science Foundation
KeywordsComputer scienceHeuristicsEdge computingComputation offloadingDistributed computingLeverage (statistics)Task (project management)OrchestrationEnhanced Data Rates for GSM EvolutionArtificial intelligenceOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The analytical research has recently indicated that the computational resources of Connected Autonomous Vehicles (CAVs) have been wasted since almost all vehicles spend over 95% of their time in parking lots. This paper presents a collaborative computing framework to efficiently offload online computational tasks to parked vehicles (PVs) during peak business hours. To maintain the service continuity, we advocate for integrating Kubernetes-based container orchestration to leverage its advanced features (e.g., auto-healing, load balancing, and security). We analytically formulate the task-offloading problem and then propose an intelligent meta-heuristic algorithm to dynamically deal with online heterogeneous demands. Additionally, we take a cumulative incentives model into account, where the PV owners are able to earn profit by sharing their computation resources. We also compare our algorithm with several existent heuristics on different sizes of the parking lot. Extensive simulation results show that our proposed computing framework significantly increases the possibility of accepting the online tasks and improves average task offloading cost by at least 40%. Besides, we quantify the PV availability by task acceptance ratios, which can be a critical criterion for network planners to achieve desired network service goals.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.873
Threshold uncertainty score0.685

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.002
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.259 · 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

Citations21
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE AccessSame topicIoT and Edge/Fog ComputingFrench-language works237,207