MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Dual-timescales Optimization for Resource Slicing and Task Scheduling in Satellite Edge Computing Networks

2024· article· en· W4402156372 on OpenAlexaff
Zeru Fang, Qinqin Tang, Renchao Xie, Tao Huang, Tianjiao Chen, F. Richard Yu

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicIoT and Edge/Fog Computing
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersNatural Science Foundation of Beijing Municipality
KeywordsComputer scienceSlicingSatelliteScheduling (production processes)Processor schedulingTask (project management)Distributed computingEnhanced Data Rates for GSM EvolutionDual (grammatical number)Resource (disambiguation)Computer networkArtificial intelligenceMathematical optimizationWorld Wide WebSystems engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper establishes a dual-timescale framework for joint resource slicing and task scheduling in satellite edge computing (SEC) networks. Specifically, to capture network dynamics and task stochasticity at small timescales, we formulate the task scheduling problem as a Markov decision process (MDP) to minimize task delay, network energy consumption, and packet loss. We design a deep reinforcement learning-assisted task scheduling (DRTS) algorithm inspired by the soft actor-critic (SAC) algorithm to learn the scheduling policy. Task processing performance is affected by communication and computing re-sources allocated to respective resource slices. Thus, considering that frequent resource slicing has a significant management over-head, we further optimize resource slices on a larger timescale. To obtain a policy with low complexity, we propose a greedy-based heuristic algorithm. A hierarchical solution is constructed to find the optimal solution due to the correlation between the two timescale problems. Finally, to validate the effectiveness and superiority of the proposed scheme, extensive simulations are performed.

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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.430
Threshold uncertainty score0.618

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 communication0.0010.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.233 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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