4.7 Article

CoSMoS: Cooperative Sky-Ground Mobile Edge Computing System

期刊

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY
卷 70, 期 8, 页码 8373-8377

出版社

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/TVT.2021.3094584

关键词

Task analysis; Delays; Edge computing; Optimization; Unmanned aerial vehicles; Cloud computing; Time division multiple access; Mobile edge computing; tethered UAV; delay minimization; UAV placement; resource allocation

资金

  1. MSIT (Ministry of Science and ICT), Korea, under the ITRC (Information Technology Research Center) [IITP-2020-0-01787]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study focuses on a tethered unmanned aerial vehicle (TUAV)-assisted mobile edge computing (MEC) system to minimize the system delay of multiple ground mobile users (MUs). By optimizing TUAV position, time slot allocation, and task splitting ratio, the proposed CoSMoS algorithm outperforms benchmark schemes through decomposition, approximation, and alternative optimization techniques.
In this correspondence, we study a tethered unmanned aerial vehicle (TUAV)-assisted mobile edge computing (MEC) system, in which tasks of several ground mobile users (MUs) are served by ground edge cloud (GEC) with superior computing capability and poor communication links and TUAV-mounted cloudlet with lower computing capability and better communication links. We aim to minimize weighted-sum system delay of MUs by jointly optimizing TUAV position, time slot allocation, and task splitting ratio. We first decompose the optimization problem into three subproblems, and then to solve non-convex subproblem related to TUAV position, we reformulate it by the first-order Taylor series approximation and apply the successive convex approximation (SCA) method. Then, we tackle the overall problem by applying the alternative optimization algorithm. Numerical results verify that our proposed cooperative sky-ground mobile edge computing system (CoSMoS) algorithm can achieve a better performance than other benchmark schemes.

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