MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Sustainable and Secure Optimization of Load Distribution in Edge Computing

2022· article· en· W4317793548 on OpenAlexafffund
Euclides Carlos Pinto Neto, Sajjad Dadkhah, Ali A. Ghorbani

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicIoT and Edge/Fog Computing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCouncil of Independent Colleges
KeywordsServerComputer scienceLoad balancing (electrical power)Cloud computingEdge computingEnhanced Data Rates for GSM EvolutionDistributed computingEdge deviceComputer networkTelecommunicationsOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nowadays, the Internet of Things (IoT) plays a disruptive role in society by bringing benefits to different industries. IoT initiatives (e.g., transportation and manufacturing) are becoming more popular, and new applications are expected in the next few years. In this sense, Cloud Computing enables small IoT devices to exceed their limited processing power and, to complement this concept, Edge Computing introduces edge processing services with short communication delay, providing services and performing calculations closer to the network and data generation. This paradigm enables systems to operate under more restrictive requirements. However, load balancing is challenging due to the various devices in IoT environments that need to be connected to different edge servers. Besides, the heterogeneity of such servers poses another obstacle to be overcome to achieve efficient load balancing capabilities. The main goal of this research is to propose a sustainable and secure load balancing approach for edge computing using Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO). This proposal distributes IoT devices connections across multiple edge servers while observing sustainability and security KPIs. To accomplish this, we utilize PSO to assign IoT devices to edge servers aiming at balancing load, sustainability, and security KPIs. Besides, we compare the results of this proposal with different optimization methods in different experiments. The results showed that our proposal outperforms those methods in all cases investigated since it can observe different metrics in balancing the load of edge servers.

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 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 score0.877
Threshold uncertainty score0.256

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.206 · 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.

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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicIoT and Edge/Fog ComputingFrench-language works237,207