MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312588618 · doi:10.1109/comst.2022.3218527

Distributed Artificial Intelligence Empowered by End-Edge-Cloud Computing: A Survey

2022· article· en· W4312588618 on OpenAlexaff
Sijing Duan, Dan Wang, Ju Ren, Feng Lyu, Ye Zhang, Huaqing Wu, Xuemin Shen

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicPrivacy-Preserving Technologies in Data
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooUniversity of Calgary
FundersNational Key Research and Development Program of ChinaHigher Education Discipline Innovation ProjectNatural Science Foundation of Hunan ProvinceCentral South UniversityTsinghua UniversityNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsCloud computingComputer scienceEdge computingData scienceDistributed computingUtility computingCloud computing securityArtificial intelligenceOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As the computing paradigm shifts from cloud computing to end-edge-cloud computing, it also supports artificial intelligence evolving from a centralized manner to a distributed one. In this paper, we provide a comprehensive survey on the distributed artificial intelligence (DAI) empowered by end-edge-cloud computing (EECC), where the heterogeneous capabilities of on-device computing, edge computing, and cloud computing are orchestrated to satisfy the diverse requirements raised by resource-intensive and distributed AI computation. Particularly, we first introduce several mainstream computing paradigms and the benefits of the EECC paradigm in supporting distributed AI, as well as the fundamental technologies for distributed AI. We then derive a holistic taxonomy for the state-of-the-art optimization technologies that are empowered by EECC to boost distributed training and inference, respectively. After that, we point out security and privacy threats in DAI-EECC architecture and review the benefits and shortcomings of each enabling defense technology in accordance with the threats. Finally, we present some promising applications enabled by DAI-EECC and highlight several research challenges and open issues toward immersive performance acquisition.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.118
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations362
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Communications Surveys & TutorialsSame topicPrivacy-Preserving Technologies in DataFrench-language works237,207