To Compute or Not to Compute? Adaptive Smart Sensing in Resource-Constrained Edge Computing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We consider a network of smart sensors for an edge computing application that sample a time-varying signal and send updates to a base station for remote global monitoring. Sensors are equipped with sensing and compute, and can either send raw data or process them on-board before transmission. Limited hardware resources at the edge generate a fundamentallatency-accuracy trade-off:raw measurements are inaccurate but timely, whereasaccurateprocessed updates are available afterprocessing delay. Hence, one needs to decide when sensors should transmit raw measurements or rely on local processing to maximize network monitoring performance. To tackle this sensing design problem, we model an estimation-theoretic optimization framework that embeds both computation and communication latency, and propose a Reinforcement Learning-based approach that dynamically allocates computational resources at each sensor. Effectiveness of our proposed approach is validated through numerical experiments motivated by smart sensing for the Internet of Drones and self-driving vehicles. In particular, we show that, under constrained computation at the base station, monitoring performance can be further improved by anonline sensor selection.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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; 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".