MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Spatial-Temporal Graph Attention-Based Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning in Cooperative Edge Caching

2023· article· en· W4387869830 on OpenAlexaff
Jiacheng Hou, Amiya Nayak

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCaching and Content Delivery
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReinforcement learningComputer scienceEnhanced Data Rates for GSM EvolutionGraphMulti-agent systemArtificial intelligenceDistributed computingTheoretical computer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the increasing number of users connecting to the internet and the number of devices each user owns, the internet is experiencing an unprecedented traffic demand. Providing users with a satisfying surfing experience while consuming minimal transmission costs is critical but also challenging. To cope with these difficulties, edge caching is emerging. Edge caching allows Base Stations (BSs) to cache files, then some of the users' requests can be satisfied by the edge rather than the cloud, where the latter results in higher latency and transmission costs. However, state-of-the-art edge caching strategies either assume file popularity is known in advance or lack of cooperation between neighbouring BSs. This paper proposes a multi-agent spatial-temporal graph attention neural network caching strategy, named “Double Deep Graph Attention Recurrent Q Network” (DDGARQN). The graph attention block can extract spatial dependencies among neighbouring BSs, and the temporal block can capture user preferences dynamics on each Base Station (BS) at each time instant. Comprehensive experimental results show that DDGARQN can achieve a 66% higher cache hit ratio, 6.9% lower latency and 6.5% lower link load than the state-of-the-art caching strategy at best.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.808
Threshold uncertainty score0.748

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.228 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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 topicCaching and Content DeliveryFrench-language works237,207