MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312128045 · doi:10.52953/ehjp3291

Intelligent proactive fault tolerance at the edge through resource usage prediction

2022· article· en· W4312128045 on OpenAlexaff
Θεόδωρος Θεοδωρόπουλος, John Violos, Stylianos Tsanakas, Aris Leivadeas, Konstantinos Tserpes, Theodora Varvarigou

Bibliographic record

VenueITU Journal on Future and Evolving Technologies · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicIoT and Edge/Fog Computing
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
FundersEuropean Commission
KeywordsComputer scienceEnhanced Data Rates for GSM EvolutionDistributed computingFault toleranceBenchmark (surveying)Edge computingResource (disambiguation)Node (physics)Resource allocationQuality of serviceCloudSimReliability (semiconductor)Mean squared errorMachine learningArtificial intelligenceComputer networkPower (physics)Cloud computingEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The proliferation of demanding applications and edge computing establishes the need for efficient management of the underlying computing infrastructures, urging the providers to rethink their operational methods. In this paper, we propose an Intelligent Proactive Fault Tolerance (IPFT) method that leverages the edge resource usage predictions through Recurrent Neural Networks (RNNs). More specifically, we focus on the process faults, which are related with the inability of the infrastructure to provide Quality of Service (QoS) in acceptable ranges due to the lack of processing power. In order to tackle this challenge we propose a composite deep learning architecture that predicts the resource usage metrics of the edge nodes and triggers proactive node replications and task migration. Taking also into consideration that the edge computing infrastructure is also highly dynamic and heterogeneous, we propose an innovative Hybrid Bayesian Evolution Strategy (HBES) algorithm for automated adaptation of the resource usage models. The proposed resource usage prediction mechanism has been experimentally evaluated and compared with other state of the art methods with significant improvements in terms of Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE) and Mean Absolute Error (MAE). Additionally, the IPFT mechanism that leverages the resource usage predictions has been evaluated in an extensive simulation in CloudSim Plus and the results show significant improvement compared to the reactive fault tolerance method in terms of reliability and maintainability.

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 categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.575
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.234
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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations9
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueITU Journal on Future and Evolving TechnologiesSame topicIoT and Edge/Fog ComputingFrench-language works237,207