4.8 Article

Mobile-Edge Computation Offloading for Ultradense IoT Networks

期刊

IEEE INTERNET OF THINGS JOURNAL
卷 5, 期 6, 页码 4977-4988

出版社

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/JIOT.2018.2838584

关键词

Edge computing; Internet of Things (IoT); mobile-edge computation offloading (MECO); mobile-edge computing (MEC); ultradense IoT network; ultradense network (UDN)

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [61771374, 61771373, 61601357]
  2. China 111 Project [B16037]
  3. Fundamental Research Fund for the Central Universities [JB171501, JB181506, JB181507, JB181508]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The emergence of massive Internet of Things (IoT) mobile devices (MDs) and the deployment of ultradense 5G cells have promoted the evolution of IoT toward ultradense IoT networks. In order to meet the diverse quality-of-service and quality of experience demands from the ever-increasing IoT applications, the ultradense IoT networks face unprecedented challenges. Among them, a fundamental one is how to address the conflict between the resource-hungry IoT mobile applications and the resource-constrained IoT MDs. By offloading the IoT MDs' computation tasks to the edge servers deployed at the radio access infrastructures, including macro base station (MBS) and small cells, mobile-edge computation offloading (MECO) provides us a promising solution. However, note that available MECO research mostly focused on single-tier base station scenario and computation offloading between the MDs and the edge server connected to the MBS. Little works can be found on performing MECO in ultradense IoT networks, i.e., a multiuser ultradense edge server scenario. Toward this end, we provide this paper to study the MECO problem in ultradense IoT networks, and propose a two-tier game-theoretic greedy offloading scheme as our solution. Extensive numerical results corroborate the superior performance of conducting computation offloading among multiple edge servers in ultradense IoT networks.

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

4.8
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