Bibliographic record
Abstract
Edge Computing (EC) is a promising computing paradigm that can foster a wide spectrum of delay-sensitive and/or data-intensive applications. As opposed to cloud computing, which relies on remote cloud servers, EC brings the computing service closer to the end-users, which can significantly reduce the delay. The concept of EC has recently expanded to include harvesting the computation resources of the Extreme Edge Devices (EEDs), such as smartphones, autonomous vehicles, tablets, etc. However, the cost of recruiting EEDs for resource allocation in such EC environments is mostly overlooked. In this paper, we propose the Price-based Compute Clusters Recruitment (PCCR) scheme. In PCCR, we minimize the cost of recruiting the EEDs required to perform a given set of tasks, where each task is satisfied by the collaborative effort of a group of EEDs forming a compute cluster. PCCR strives to minimize the total recruitment cost while keeping the delay below a certain threshold by forming the optimal set of compute clusters from a pool of heterogeneous EEDs available in a given geographical area. We formulate the optimization problem as a Mixed Integer Quadratically Constrained Quadratic Program (MIQCQP). We then derive an analytical solution using the KKT conditions and Lagrangian analysis. Extensive simulations show that PCCR significantly outperforms a prominent baseline approach in terms of recruitment cost.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".