4.7 Article

Near-Optimal and Truthful Online Auction for Computation Offloading in Green Edge-Computing Systems

期刊

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MOBILE COMPUTING
卷 19, 期 4, 页码 880-893

出版社

IEEE COMPUTER SOC
DOI: 10.1109/TMC.2019.2901474

关键词

Task analysis; Servers; Cloud computing; Delays; Energy consumption; Internet of Things; Energy harvesting; Edge computing; computation offloading; energy harvesting; online auction; Lyapunov optimization; internet of things

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [61702561, 61702562]
  2. 111 project [B18059]
  3. NSF [ECCS1554576]
  4. Innovation-Driven Project of Central South University [2016CXS013]
  5. International Science and Technology Cooperation Program of China [2013DFB10070]
  6. China Hunan Provincial Science and Technology Program [2012GK4106]
  7. Kuwait Foundation for the Advancement of Sciences [P314-35EO-01]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Utilizing the intelligence at the network edge, edge computing paradigm emerges to provide time-sensitive computing services for Internet of Things. In this paper, we investigate sustainable computation offloading in an edge-computing system that consists of energy harvesting-enabled mobile devices (MDs) and a dispatcher. The dispatcher collects computation tasks generated by IoT devices with limited computation power, and offloads them to resourceful MDs in exchange for rewards. We propose an online Rewards-optimal Auction (RoA) to optimize the long-term sum-of-rewards for processing offloaded tasks, meanwhile adapting to the highly dynamic energy harvesting (EH) process and computation task arrivals. RoA is designed based on Lyapunov optimization and Vickrey-Clarke-Groves auction, the operation of which does not require a prior knowledge of the energy harvesting, task arrivals, or wireless channel statistics. Our analytical results confirm the optimality of tasks assignment. Furthermore, simulation results validate the analytical analysis, and verify the efficacy of the proposed RoA.

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