MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388008036 · doi:10.1145/3616390.3618277

Online Dependency-aware Task offloading in Cloudlet-based Edge Computing Networks

2023· article· en· W4388008036 on OpenAlexaff
Brunilde Sansò

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicIoT and Edge/Fog Computing
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceCloudletDistributed computingEdge computingLatency (audio)Dependency (UML)Task (project management)Mobile deviceServerReinforcement learningMobile edge computingTask analysisEnhanced Data Rates for GSM EvolutionMobile computingComputer networkArtificial intelligenceOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The demand for low-latency processing in mobile devices is dramatically increasing. However, mobile devices inherently lack the capacity to handle heavy and low-latency processing. Edge computing techniques, which offload the tasks of user applications to a nearby server, are being used to mitigate this problem. Moreover, applications requiring rapid processing have evolved, becoming more complex. Application tasks are no longer merely computational and independent; each task requires its associated libraries and dependencies, all of which must be considered during offloading. The dependency between tasks should also be taken into account. Centralized decision-making for offloading for a large number of users is not practically feasible. In response to this issue, we designed a distributed method based on deep reinforcement learning. We defined the states of the learning agent in a manner that enables users to learn about the environment with respect to the level of task dependency. Through simulation, we demonstrate that the proposed algorithm surpasses existing benchmarks in terms of application completion time by identifying the optimal server for offloading dependent tasks.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.830
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.242 · 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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicIoT and Edge/Fog ComputingFrench-language works237,207