4.6 Article

Artificial Intelligent Multi-Access Edge Computing Servers Management

期刊

IEEE ACCESS
卷 8, 期 -, 页码 171292-171304

出版社

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3025047

关键词

Servers; Edge computing; Task analysis; Bayes methods; Quality of experience; Decision making; Quality of service; Multi-access edge computing (MEC); artificial intelligence; decision making; Bayesian Truth Serum; Bayesian Learning Automata; Bayesian Belief

资金

  1. NSF [CRII-1849739]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The advances of multi-access edge computing (MEC) have paved the way for the integration of the MEC servers, as intelligent entities into the Internet of Things (IoT) environment as well as into the 5G radio access networks. In this paper, a novel artificial intelligence-based MEC servers' activation mechanism is proposed, by adopting the principles of Reinforcement Learning (RL) and Bayesian Reasoning. The considered problem enables the MEC servers' activation decision-making, aiming at enhancing the reputation of the overall MEC system, as well as considering the total computing costs to serve efficiently the users' computing demands, guaranteeing at the same time their Quality of Experience (QoE) prerequisites satisfaction. Each MEC server decides in an autonomous manner whether it will be activated or remain in sleep mode by utilizing the theory of Bayesian Learning Automata (BLA). A human-driven peer-review-based evaluation of the edge computing system's provided services is also introduced based on the concept of Bayesian Truth Serum (BTS), which supports the development of a reputation mechanism regarding the MEC servers' provided services. The intelligent MEC servers' autonomous decisions' satisfaction is captured via a holistic utility function, which they aim to maximize in a distributed manner. Finally, detailed numerical results obtained via modeling and simulation, highlight the key operation features and superiority of the proposed framework.

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

4.6
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