Bibliographic record
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) technologies, and particularly deep learning systems, are traditionally the domain of large-scale cloud servers, which have access to high computational and energy resources. Nonetheless, in Internet-of-Things (IoT) networks, the interface with the real-world is carried out using edge devices; these devices an communicate with each other, and are each limited in hardware. The conventional approach to provide AI processing to data collected by edge devices involves sending samples to the cloud, at the cost of latency, communication, connectivity, and privacy concerns. Consequently, recent years have witnessed a growing interest in enabling AI-aided inference on edge devices by leveraging their communication capabilities to establish collaborative inference. This article reviews candidate strategies for facilitating the transition of AI to IoT devices via collaboration. We identify the need to operate in different mobility and connectivity constraints as a motivating factor to consider multiple schemes, which can be roughly divided into methods where inference is done remotely, i.e., on the cloud, and those that infer on the edge. We identify the key characteristics of each strategy in terms of inference accuracy, communication latency, privacy, and connectivity requirements, providing a systematic comparison between existing approaches. We conclude by presenting future research challenges and opportunities arising from the concept of collaborative inference.
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 | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".