Privacy-Aware Load Balancing in Fog Networks: A Reinforcement Learning Approach
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we propose a load balancing algorithm based on Reinforcement Learning (RL) to optimize the performance of Fog Computing for real-time IoT applications. The algorithm aims to minimize the waiting delay of IoT workloads in dynamic environments with unpredictable traffic demands, using intelligent workload distribution. Unlike previous studies, our solution does not require load and resource information from Fog nodes to preserve the privacy of service providers, who may wish to hide such information to prevent competitors from calculating better pricing strategies. The proposed algorithm is evaluated on a Discrete-event Simulator (DES) to mimic practical deployment in real environments, and its generalization ability is tested on simulations longer than what it was trained on. Our results show that our proposed approach outperforms baseline load balancing methods under different workload generation rates, while ensuring the privacy of Fog service providers. Furthermore, the environment representation we proposed for the RL agent demonstrates better performance compared to the commonly used representations for RL solutions in the literature, which compromise privacy.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it