Collaborative Edge Intelligence Service Provision in Blockchain Empowered Urban Rail Transit Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the advancement of Urban Rail Transits (URTs), the demand for artificial intelligence (AI) based URTs services grows exponentially. Edge intelligence (EI) leverages computing resources on the network edge to provide realtime intelligent services in close proximity. As it enables fast distributed learning, EI is envisioned to be a potential component of URTs, and ideal EI service provision is a critical concern for the intelligent development of URTs. The existing EI-related research concentrates on the computation offloading of general AI-based tasks, whereas both the edge server deployment and AI model training process are not explicitly designed for URTs. The URTs AI service characteristics such as model training demand, priority, and security are largely ignored. In this paper, we propose a novel collaborative EI service provision framework for URTs. Blockchain is used along with the EI server to construct a trusted computing infrastructure. To address the EI service credit crisis, a blockchain-based trust management mechanism including short-term reward incentives and long-term reputation evaluation is designed in the trusted computing infrastructure. An HRL-based collaborative training service optimization model is proposed to improve the learning efficiency and edge resource utilization rate in URTs. Specifically, the proposed two-stage collaborative optimization model jointly considers high-level service scheduling and low-level task offloading. In addition, we present an intelligent train control model based on the state-ofthe-art decision transformer (DT), with the training service as a case study to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed collaborative EI service provision. Extensive simulation results show that the proposed EI service provision framework can provide trusted, efficient, and high-quality AI training services, simultaneously improving URTs operational efficiency.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.021 | 0.009 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".