Service-Oriented Edge Collaboration: Digital Twin Enabled Edge Collaboration for Composite Services in AVNs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Edge collaboration is expected to effectively relieve the load of base stations and enhance the driving experience of autonomous vehicles (AVs). However, in existing edge collaboration schemes, the frequent information exchange between AVs will consume a significant amount of resources. In addition, the existing schemes ignore the types of services, where services with different types may be combined into a composite service which affects the utility of AVs. To this end, we consider various types of services in autonomous vehicular networks (AVNs) and propose a digital twin (DT)-enabled edge collaboration scheme for composite services. Specifically, we first divide the DTs of service requesters (DT-SRs) into service request groups (SRGs) based on the same basic service requests and propose an architecture to facilitate the edge collaboration between the DTs of the leaders of SRGs (DT-L-SRGs) and the DTs of the service providers (DT-SPs). In this architecture, different service composition forms will result in different resource purchase strategies for DT-L-SRGs and different resource pricing strategies for DT-SPs. Therefore, we model the process of service composition as a coalition game to determine the optimal service composition form for each basic service. In the process of the coalition game, in order to obtain the optimal resource purchase strategy for each DT-L-SRG and the optimal resource pricing strategy for each DT-SP under different coalition structures, the interaction between the DT-L-SRGs and the DT-SPs is formulated as a Stackelberg game. By obtaining the game equilibrium, the optimal strategies of each DT-L-SRG and each DT-SP can be determined to measure the performance of the given coalition structure until a stable and optimal composite service structure is finally formed through multiple rounds of iterations. Compared with traditional schemes, the simulation results demonstrate that our scheme can bring the highest utilities to both the SRs and the SPs.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".