A Multi-Hop-Aware User To Edge-Server Association Game
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nowadays, services and applications are becoming more latency-sensitive and resource-hungry. Due to their high computational complexity, they can not always be processed locally in user equipment, and have to be offloaded to a distant powerful server. Instead of resorting to remote Cloud servers with high latency and traffic bottlenecks, service providers could map their users to Multi-Access Edge Computing (MEC) servers that can run computation-intensive tasks nearby. This mapping of users to MEC distributed servers is known as the Edge User Allocation (EUA) problem, and has been widely studied in the literature from the perspective of service providers. However, users in previous works can only be allocated to a server if they are in its coverage. In reality, it may be optimal to allocate a user to a distant server (e.g., two hops away from the user) if the latency threshold and system cost are both respected. This work presents the first attempt to tackle the multi-hop aware EUA problem. We consider the static EUA problem where users have a simultaneous-batch arrival pattern, and detail the added complexity compared to the original EUA setting. Afterwards, we propose a game theory-based distributed approach for allocating users to edge servers. We finally conduct a series of experiments to evaluate the performance of our approach against other baseline approaches. The results illustrate the potential benefits of allowing multi-hop allocations in providing better overall system cost to service providers.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".