4.7 Article

A Socially-Aware Hybrid Computation Offloading Framework for Multi-Access Edge Computing

期刊

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MOBILE COMPUTING
卷 19, 期 6, 页码 1247-1259

出版社

IEEE COMPUTER SOC
DOI: 10.1109/TMC.2019.2908154

关键词

Device-to-device communication; Task analysis; Servers; Mobile handsets; Computational modeling; Wireless communication; Collaboration; Mobile collaborative application; wireless distributed computing; computation offloading; multicast communication; socially aware; monte carlo tree search

资金

  1. National Science Foundation of China [U1711265]
  2. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [17lgjc40]
  3. Program for Guangdong Introducing Innovative and Enterpreneurial Teams [2017ZT07X355]
  4. FUI PODIUM project [10703]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Computation offloading manages resource-intensive and mobile collaborative applications (MCA) on mobile devices where much processing is replicated with multiple users in the same environment. In this article, we propose a novel hybrid multicast-based task execution framework for multi-access edge computing (MEC), where a crowd of mobile devices at the network edge leverage network-assisted device-to-device (D2D) collaboration for wireless distributed computing (MDC) and outcome sharing. The framework is socially aware in order to build effective D2D links. A key objective of this framework is to achieve an energy-efficient task assignment policy for mobile users. Specifically, we first introduce the socially aware hybrid computation offloading (SAHCO) system model, which combines of MEC offloading and D2D offloading in detail. Then, we formulate the energy-efficient task assignment problem by taking into account the necessary constraints. We next propose a Monte Carlo Tree Search based algorithm, named, TA-MCTS for the task assignment problem. Simulation results show that compared to four alternative benchmark solutions in literature, our proposal can reduce energy consumption up to 45.37 percent.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据