MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416751014 · doi:10.1109/nca67271.2025.00023

An Analytical Model for Distributed Video Analytics in Mobile Computer Vision-based Systems

2025· article· W4416751014 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Lesko-Krleza, Rodolfo W. L. Coutinho, Yousef R. Shayan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldComputer Science
TopicIoT and Edge/Fog Computing
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsServerMobile cloud computingMobile computingHeuristicsMobile deviceCloud computingAnalyticsKey (lock)Mobile edge computingCloudlet

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Computer vision for mobile systems is challenging. Video frame processing locally on mobile devices is impractical due to the device’s limited resources, whereas processing at remote cloud and edge servers is time-consuming due to the communication issues. In this paper, we propose an analytical approach to cope with the local and remote processing tradeoff in mobile computer vision systems. We devise a stochastic model for a mobile computer vision systems and derive closedform expressions for key performance metrics, namely, processing latency, offloading latency, and energy cost. We propose two heuristics to obtain useful insights regarding distributed computer vision in smart mobile systems. We illustrate the model’s application through a case study involving collaborative video analytics at mobile users and edge servers under different conditions. Numerical results show the distinctions in the processing and offloading energy costs at mobile devices and the high latency when a high offloading rate is used.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.294 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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