A Bandit Approach to Online Pricing for Heterogeneous Edge Resource Allocation
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
Edge Computing (EC) offers a superior user experience by positioning cloud resources in close proximity to end users. The challenge of allocating edge resources efficiently while maximizing profit for the EC platform remains a sophisticated problem, especially with the added complexity of the online arrival of resource requests. To address this challenge, we propose to cast the problem as a multi-armed bandit problem and develop two novel online pricing mechanisms, the Kullback-Leibler Upper Confidence Bound (KL-UCB) algorithm and the Min-Max Optimal algorithm, for heterogeneous edge resource allocation. These mechanisms operate in real-time and do not require prior knowledge of demand distribution, which can be difficult to obtain in practice. The proposed posted pricing schemes allow users to select and pay for their preferred resources, with the platform dynamically adjusting resource prices based on observed historical data. Numerical results show the advantages of the proposed mechanisms compared to several benchmark schemes derived from traditional bandit algorithms, including the Epsilon-Greedy, basic UCB, and Thompson Sampling algorithms.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it