On the Modeling of Reliability in Extreme Edge Computing Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Extreme edge computing (EEC) refers to the end-most part of edge computing wherein computational tasks and edge services are deployed only on extreme edge devices (EEDs). EEDs are consumer or user-owned devices that offer computational resources, which may consist of wearable devices, personal mobile devices, drones, etc. Such devices are opportunistically or naturally present within the proximity of other user devices. Hence, utilizing EEDs to deploy edge services or perform computational tasks fulfills the promise of edge computing of bringing the services and computation as close as possible to the end-users. However, the lack of knowledge and control over the EEDs computational resources raises a red flag, since executing the computational tasks successfully becomes doubtful. To this end, we aim to study the EEDs randomness from the computational perspective, and how reliable is an EED in terms of executing the tasks on time. Specifically, we provide a reliability model for the EEDs that takes into account the probabilistic nature of the availability of the EEDs' computational resources. Moreover, we study the reliability of executing different types of computational tasks in EEC systems that are distributed across the EEDs. Lastly, we carry out experimental results to analyze the EEDs and the EEC systems' reliability behavior in different scenarios.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| 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 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".