MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404132614 · doi:10.1109/jiot.2024.3494533

Load-Aware Orchestrator for Edge-Computing-Aided Wireless Augmented Reality

2024· article· en· W4404132614 on OpenAlexaff
Weiyang Qian, Rodolfo W. L. Coutinho

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Internet of Things Journal · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicIoT and Edge/Fog Computing
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceAugmented realityWirelessEdge computingEnhanced Data Rates for GSM EvolutionComputer networkDistributed computingHuman–computer interactionTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mobile augmented reality (MAR) has gained increased attention thanks to its potential to transform applications in different domains. One of the challenges to realizing MAR systems is the processing of video frames efficiently. MAR user devices are often resource-constrained and unsuitable for real-time object detection and recognition from video streams. Edge computing has tremendous potential to enable MAR systems, where processing instances (e.g., serverless functions, containers, or virtual machines) can implement and manage the execution of convolutional neural networks (CNNs) for processing MAR offloaded video frames. One of the challenges is how to balance the video frames across the edge servers and processing instances. In this article, we proposed the LAOS orchestrator for resource management and load balancing of distributed edge servers for MAR systems. The LAOS orchestrator balances incoming video frames among processing instances at the edge servers that process video frames. It also determines when to spawn new instances of the CNN functions aimed at ensuring a predefined latency threshold for the processing of video frames. Besides, we devised a novel queuing-based framework for modeling the resource management problem of distributed edge servers for MAR systems. The obtained numerical results show that the proposed LAOS orchestrator reduces the latency and efficiently manages the edge computing resources when dynamic workload peaks are considered.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations8
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Internet of Things JournalSame topicIoT and Edge/Fog ComputingFrench-language works237,207