MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

RAP-G: Reliability-aware service placement using genetic algorithm for deep edge computing

2023· article· en· W4327778999 on OpenAlexaff
Abdellah Kaci, Soraya Ait‐Chellouche, Yassine Hadjadj‐Aoul, Miloud Bagaa

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicIoT and Edge/Fog Computing
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceCloud computingProvisioningReliability (semiconductor)Enhanced Data Rates for GSM EvolutionGenetic algorithmSoftware deploymentDistributed computingLatency (audio)AlgorithmComputer networkService (business)Service providerArtificial intelligenceMachine learningOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To ensure low latency, service providers are increasingly turning to edge computing, pushing services and resources from the Cloud to the Edge of the network, as close as possible to users. However, since video and image processing applications are particularly computationally intensive, their deployment is typically based on distributed provisioning between the Edge and the Cloud, which can increase the risk of failure when relying on unreliable networks. In this work, we proposed the algorithm RAP-G (Reliability-Aware service Placement with Genetics), which considers the reliability of network links and distributes services between the Cloud and the Edge using a genetic algorithm (GA). We have also developed a new variant of the first-fit algorithm called RF2 (Reliability-Aware First-Fit) that considers reliability within a reasonable time. The performance of the RAP-G algorithm was evaluated and compared with the RF2 algorithm. The experimental results show the importance of considering reliability in service delivery and the superiority of RAP-G.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.894
Threshold uncertainty score0.953

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.250 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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