Scientific Workflows in IoT Environments: A Data Placement Strategy Based on Heterogeneous Edge-Cloud Computing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Industry 4.0 and Internet of Things (IoT) environments, the heterogeneous edge-cloud computing paradigm can provide a more proper solution to deploy scientific workflows compared to cloud computing or other traditional distributed computing. Owing to the different sizes of scientific datasets and the privacy issue concerning some of these datasets, it is essential to find a data placement strategy that can minimize data transmission time. Some state-of-the-art data placement strategies combine edge computing and cloud computing to distribute scientific datasets. However, the dynamic distribution of newly generated datasets to appropriate datacenters and exiting the spent datasets are still a challenge during workflows execution. To address this challenge, this study not only constructs a data placement model that includes shared datasets within the individual and among multiple workflows across various geographical regions, but also proposes a data placement strategy (DYM-RL-DPS) based on algorithms of two stages. First, during the build-time stage of workflows, we use the discrete particle swarm optimization algorithm with differential evolution to pre-allocate initial datasets to proper datacenters. Then, we reformulate the dynamic datasets distribution problem as a Markov decision process and provide a reinforcement learning–based approach to learn the data placement strategy in the runtime stage of scientific workflows. Through using the heterogeneous edge-cloud computing architecture to simulate IoT environments, we designed comprehensive experiments to demonstrate the superiority of DYM-RL-DPS. The results of our strategy can effectively reduce the data transmission time as compared to other strategies.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".