Enabling AI-Generated Content Services in Wireless Edge Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Artificial intelligence-generated content (AIGC) refers to the use of AI to automate the information creation process while fulfilling the personalized requirements of users. However, due to the instability of AIGC models -- for example, the stochastic nature of diffusion models -- the quality and accuracy of the generated content can vary significantly. In wireless edge networks, the transmission of incorrectly generated content may unnecessarily consume network resources. Thus, a dynamic AIGC service provider (ASP) selection scheme is required to enable users to connect to the most suited ASP, improving the users' satisfaction as well as the quality of generated content. In this article, we first review the AIGC techniques and their applications in wireless networks. We then present the AIGC-as-a-service (AaaS) concept and discuss the challenges in deploying AaaS at the edge networks. It is essential to have performance metrics to evaluate the accuracy of AIGC services. Thus, we introduce several image-based perceived quality evaluation metrics. Then, we propose a general and effective model to illustrate the relationship between computational resources and user-perceived quality evaluation metrics. To achieve efficient AaaS and maximize the quality of generated content in wireless edge networks, we propose a deep reinforcement learning-enabled algorithm for optimal ASP selection. Simulation results show that the proposed algorithm can provide a higher quality of generated content to users and achieve fewer crashed tasks by comparing with four benchmarks, that is, overloading- avoidance, randomness, round-robin policies, and the upper-bound schemes.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".