MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4285049113 · doi:10.1109/tgcn.2022.3190085

Energy-Efficient Resource Allocation for D2D-Assisted Fog Computing

2022· article· en· W4285049113 on OpenAlexafffund
Onur Karatalay, Ioannis Psaromiligkos, Benoı̂t Champagne

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Green Communications and Networking · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicIoT and Edge/Fog Computing
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceMathematical optimizationEnergy consumptionHessian matrixBenchmark (surveying)Resource allocationHeuristicComputational complexity theoryTask (project management)Range (aeronautics)Energy (signal processing)Upper and lower boundsComputationResource (disambiguation)Convex optimizationDistributed computingRegular polygonAlgorithmMathematicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we address the problem of energy-efficient resource allocation in a multi-device D2D-assisted fog computing scenario, where the goal is to minimize the total energy consumption subject to constraints on the transmit powers, computation resources and task processing times. The considered problem is non-convex and finding its global optimum is generally intractable; hence we propose two sub-optimal approaches to solve it. First, by investigating the relationship between the task processing time and the total energy consumption, we show how the original problem can be relaxed into a sequence of convex subproblems whose solutions can be efficiently obtained via standard algorithms. Second, to further reduce computational complexity, we propose a low-complexity heuristic resource allocation strategy which does not require calculating gradients and the Hessian matrices in the solution process. We also develop a lower bound on the total energy consumption for the considered task offloading scenario as a benchmark for comparison purpose. Computer simulations under a wide range of conditions and parameter settings show that both methods achieve a near-optimal solution in comparison to the lower bound.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations16
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Green Communications and NetworkingSame topicIoT and Edge/Fog ComputingFrench-language works237,207