FOGNITE: Federated Learning-Enhanced Fog-Cloud Architecture

Somayeh Sobati-M

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 18 references

FOGNITE: Federated Learning-Enhanced Fog-Cloud Architecture

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that a fog-cloud architecture for smart grids combining federated learning, reinforcement learning, and digital-twin validation can beat a state-of-the-art baseline across response time, load balancing, energy, accuracy…

desk verdict A coherent fog-cloud architecture paper whose headline numbers don't match its own table, making the central claim unreproducible as reported, but the system design is worth a referee's look. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.16668 v1 pith:GRPURC2D submitted 2025-07-22 cs.DC

Somayeh Sobati-M This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.DC

keywords fogcomputingsmartgridfederatedlearningreinforcementdigitaltwinloadbalancingenergyefficiencyedge

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to show that the integration of three components—federated learning, reinforcement learning, and digital-twin validation—into one fog-cloud architecture delivers smart-grid control that is faster, more accurate, more energy-aware, and more resilient than a conventional fog-cloud baseline called FOCCA. The motivation is that real-time grid management needs both privacy-preserving learning at the edge and a way to test decisions before they affect the physical grid. The paper reports a physical testbed of 20 Raspberry Pi fog nodes and 150 simulated smart meters, claiming up to a 93.7% improvement in load balancing accuracy and a 63.2% reduction in energy waste, along with a 40% drop in runtime errors. If the claims hold, grid operators could shift from reactive correction to proactive optimization.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the three-layer closed loop: each fog node runs a local federated CNN-LSTM learner, a PPO reinforcement scheduler, and an edge digital twin that simulates any proposed action before it is executed. The digital twin, built from containerized replicas with injected latency, packet loss, and power modeling, is what converts the reinforcement agent's proposals into safe deployments, while a cloud-tier twin adds global failure-propagation checks.

What would settle it

Run the same 72-hour workload with the digital twin validation disabled but everything else identical; if the cumulative error count stays near 112 rather than rising toward FOCCA's 187, then the digital twin is not the cause of the claimed error reduction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the three components work as a closed loop: each fog node trains a local CNN-LSTM model on private consumption data and shares only model updates, a PPO-based reinforcement learning agent schedules tasks based on live system state, and a hierarchical digital twin simulates every proposed action before deployment. The paper reports that this combination reduces average response time from 120 ms to 85 ms, raises load balancing efficiency from 78% to 92%, cuts energy consumption from 1.2 kWh to 0.9 kWh, improves model accuracy from 85% to 91%, shortens fault recovery time from 4.5 s to 1.8 s, and lowers cumulative 72-hour runtime errors from 187 to 112.

Load-bearing premise

The digital twin simulation is assumed to accurately model how the physical fog nodes actually behave, so that actions validated in simulation are safe and efficient in the real testbed.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the architecture is adopted, smart-grid operators could delegate routine load-balancing decisions to edge nodes while keeping a simulation-based safety check before any action touches the grid.
Privacy-preserving federated training would allow utilities to learn from consumer data without centralizing it, which may ease regulatory and trust barriers.
The reported 40% reduction in runtime errors suggests that pre-deployment simulation could become a standard layer in fog orchestration, not just for grids but for other latency-sensitive IoT systems.
The 25% energy reduction attributed to renewable-aware scheduling indicates that load balancers might be able to shift work to times and nodes where clean energy is abundant, lowering carbon footprint without hardware changes.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The paper's headline percentages (93.7% load-balancing improvement, 63.2% energy-waste reduction) are computed relative to FOCCA's baseline values, but the detailed tables show smaller absolute changes; a careful reader should verify which ratio is meant before comparing across papers.
The digital twin's value depends on how faithfully its simulated latency, packet loss, and power draw reproduce the physical Raspberry Pi nodes; if the twin is too optimistic, real-world error rates could be higher than the simulated ones.
The architecture's added memory and startup overhead that the paper acknowledges suggest that the benefits may shrink on even more constrained devices than the 4GB Raspberry Pi 4B, such as smaller microcontrollers.
A natural next step, which the paper leaves implicit, is to test whether the digital twin layer alone (without federated learning or RL) could already yield most of the error-reduction benefit, isolating the contribution of each component.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Quick take: FOGNITE is a plausible plumbing exercise—federated learning, a PPO scheduler, and digital twin validation—but the experimental claims are not reproducible from the paper as written. The abstract's 93.7% load-balancing improvement and 63.2% energy-waste reduction don't match Table III, which shows an 18% relative gain in load-balancing efficiency and a 25% reduction in energy consumption. This isn't cosmetic; it's the main evidence that the architecture works. The stress-test note is right to make this the lead concern.

What's actually there: a clean system architecture, a reasonable choice of FOCCA as an external baseline, and an honest limitations section (15% deployment overhead, 20% memory increase, 5–10% startup latency). The authors give model sizes, hyperparameters, and testbed details in enough detail for someone to attempt a reconstruction. That's more transparency than many system papers in this area.

The soft spots beyond the headline mismatch: the digital twin's fidelity is asserted rather than validated—no calibration, no sensitivity analysis—yet the 40% runtime-error reduction depends on it. The runtime-error experiment shows cumulative counts in a figure but gives no raw logs. The self-citation is sloppy: references [3] and [11] are the same arXiv preprint (2403.07012) under two different titles. And the complexity analysis is partly hand-waving—the load-balancing comparison uses different parameters without justifying why those particular terms dominate.

On balance, the architecture is worth discussing, but the paper is not ready. I'd send it to peer review with a request for major revision: make the metrics consistent, provide raw data or code, and either validate the digital twin or soften the claims that depend on it. If the authors fix the reporting, this could be a useful data point for smart-grid orchestration. As it stands, I wouldn't cite it.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes FOGNITE, a four-layer fog-cloud architecture for smart-grid load balancing that combines federated learning (CNN-LSTM per fog node with FedAvg aggregation), a PPO-based reinforcement-learning scheduler, and a two-tier digital twin that validates actions before deployment. The evaluation uses a 20-node Raspberry Pi 4B testbed with 150 simulated smart meters over 72 hours, comparing against the FOCCA baseline. The paper claims large improvements in response time, load balancing efficiency, energy consumption, model accuracy, fault recovery, and runtime-error count, and presents a complexity analysis in Section VII-C. The central claim, stated in the abstract, is that FOGNITE yields up to 93.7% better load-balancing accuracy and 63.2% less energy waste than conventional architectures.

Significance. If the reported results were reproducible, the paper would make a useful contribution: it combines three well-motivated mechanisms (privacy-preserving federated training, adaptive RL scheduling, and pre-deployment digital twin validation) in a single fog-cloud framework, and it evaluates on a physical Raspberry Pi testbed against an external baseline rather than a self-constructed strawman. The comparison with FOCCA is a real strength. However, the headline quantitative claims are internally inconsistent with the reported measurements, the evaluation lacks statistical support, and the digital-twin fidelity, which underpins the error-reduction claim, is not validated. As it stands, the evidence does not support the abstract's central assertions.

major comments (4)

[Abstract and Section VI-A, Table III] The abstract claims 'up to a 93.7% improvement in load balancing accuracy and a 63.2% reduction in energy waste,' but Table III reports load-balancing efficiency of 78% (FOCCA) versus 92% (FOGNITE), a relative improvement of about 18%, and energy consumption of 1.2 kWh versus 0.9 kWh, a 25% reduction. No other table, equation, or appendix defines 'load balancing accuracy' or 'energy waste,' and no raw data are provided that would reproduce the abstract's figures. Section VII-A repeats a 25% energy reduction and a 40% runtime-error reduction, further diverging from the abstract. This is a load-bearing inconsistency: the central quantitative claim cannot be verified from the paper as written. Please reconcile the abstract and conclusions with the reported measurements, or provide the definitions and logs that yield the headline percentages.
[Section VI-A, Table III, and Section VI-B] All five performance metrics are reported as single point values with no standard deviations, confidence intervals, number of independent runs, or significance tests. Because the testbed has 20 heterogeneous fog nodes and the experiment spans 72 hours, run-to-run and node-to-node variability must be quantified before any claim of superiority over FOCCA is warranted. This applies to every row of Table III and to the cumulative error counts in Figure 3.
[Sections III-C and V-E] The digital twin layer is the causal mechanism invoked for the 40% runtime-error reduction in Section VI-B, but the paper provides no calibration, validation error, or sensitivity analysis comparing twin predictions with physical measurements on the Raspberry Pi testbed. The implementation details (CPU-latency variation ±10%, netem delays, RAPL counters, OMNeT++ failure simulation) do not establish that twin-validated actions are safe or that the observed error reduction is due to twin fidelity rather than to other architectural differences. This concern is load-bearing for the error-reduction claim.
[Section VII-C, Eq. (5)] The complexity analysis contains an unexplained O(d^3) term for 'federated weight aggregation'; FedAvg aggregation is linear in the number of model parameters, so Eq. (5) reduces algebraically to O(n d^2 + k d^3), which does not show a training-cost advantage over FOCCA's O(n d^2). Please correct the derivation or remove the complexity claims, since as written they are inaccurate.

minor comments (6)

[References [3] and [11]] References [3] and [11] are the same arXiv paper (arXiv:2403.07012) listed under different titles; [11] is cited in Section IV-B for RL-based load balancing, which the cited paper does not address. Please merge or remove the duplicate and correct the supporting citation.
[Section III-A] The FedAvg update formula is typeset in a way that makes w_t^{(k)} and the aggregation weights difficult to parse; please rewrite with explicit iteration indices.
[Table II and Section V-B] Table II states that the 150 smart meters are simulated devices, while the abstract and Section V-B call the testbed 'real-world'; please clarify which components are physical and which are simulated.
[Section V-A] The pruning threshold of 0.001 and the claimed 4.2x model-size reduction are not accompanied by accuracy values before and after compression; please report them.
[Section VII-D] The overhead estimates (15% deployment effort, 20% memory increase, 5-10% startup latency) are stated without measurement details; they should be quantified or explicitly labeled as qualitative estimates.
[Manuscript metadata] The header states 'received April 19, 2024; revised January 11, 2024,' which is chronologically inconsistent; please correct.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the central performance claims are empirical measurements against the external FOCCA baseline; the abstract/table percentage mismatch is an internal-consistency problem, not a circular derivation.

full rationale

FOGNITE does not derive its headline results from its own assumptions or from fitted parameters. Section VI-A reports five measured metrics in Table III (e.g., response time 120→85 ms, load balancing efficiency 78→92%, energy 1.2→0.9 kWh, accuracy 85→91%, fault recovery 4.5→1.8 s) obtained from a stated Raspberry Pi testbed against the external FOCCA baseline. None of these values is defined in terms of the claimed improvement, and no parameter fitted to a subset of the results is renamed as a prediction. The digital twin is described qualitatively as a pre-deployment validator, but the reported numbers are not generated by the twin's equations. The abstract's '93.7% improvement in load balancing accuracy' and '63.2% reduction in energy waste' cannot be recovered from Table III (which implies roughly 18% and 25%, respectively); this is a serious internal inconsistency and reproducibility defect, but it is a correctness/consistency issue, not circularity. The only citation oddity is that references [3] and [11] both point to D. Shi's arXiv:2403.07012 under different titles; this is a duplicate-citation problem, not a self-citation, and neither reference is load-bearing for the empirical comparison. Therefore no circular step is exhibited, and the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on several unvalidated assumptions about the digital twin's fidelity, the representativeness of the testbed, and the fair implementation of the baseline. Free parameters include hand-picked hyperparameters and reward weights that are not analyzed for sensitivity. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)

Pruning threshold = 0.001
Chosen by hand in Section V-A to remove weights below this magnitude; affects model size and accuracy.
Reward weights alpha, beta, gamma = Not disclosed
Section III-B says they are 'tuned based on grid policy'; these weights determine the RL agent's trade-off between response time, energy, and resource balance.
PPO hyperparameters = learning rate 5e-4, discount 0.99, entropy coefficient 0.01
Set in Section V-D without sensitivity analysis; they influence policy convergence and final performance.
CNN-LSTM architecture = 32 filters, 64 hidden units, 128/64 dense
Selected in Section V-C; no ablation or comparison with other architectures is provided.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption FedAvg aggregation produces a global model that preserves local model quality
Section III-A and V-A rely on standard federated averaging; the paper does not analyze convergence for heterogeneous energy data.
domain assumption PPO training converges to a near-optimal scheduling policy
Section III-B and V-D assume the RL agent learns a good policy; no training curves or convergence plots are shown.
domain assumption Digital twin simulations accurately predict real-world outcomes
Section III-C uses twins to validate actions; the 40% error reduction claim depends on this fidelity, which is not validated.
domain assumption The Raspberry Pi testbed with virtual smart meters is representative of real smart grid conditions
Section V-B describes the testbed; no evidence that 150 virtual meters at 15Hz mimic realistic grid load patterns.
domain assumption The FOCCA baseline is faithfully reimplemented
Section VII compares FOGNITE to FOCCA; no details on how FOCCA was set up on the same hardware, so the comparison may be unfair.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of FOGNITE: Federated Learning-Enhanced Fog-Cloud Architecture." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GRPURC2D

@misc{pith2026250716668,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: FOGNITE: Federated Learning-Enhanced Fog-Cloud Architecture},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GRPURC2D}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.16668}
}

read the original abstract

Modern smart grids demand fast, intelligent, and energy-aware computing at the edge to manage real time fluctuations and ensure reliable operation. This paper introduces FOGNITE Fog-based Grid In intelligence with Neural Integration and Twin based Execution a next-generation fog cloud framework designed to enhance autonomy, resilience, and efficiency in distributed energy systems. FOGNITE combines three core components: federated learning, reinforcement learning, and digital twin validation. Each fog node trains a local CNN LSTM model on private energy consumption data, enabling predictive intelligence while preserving data privacy through federated aggregation. A reinforcement learning agent dynamically schedules tasks based on current system load and energy conditions, optimizing for performance under uncertainty. To prevent unsafe or inefficient decisions, a hierarchical digital twin layer simulates potential actions before deployment, significantly reducing execution errors and energy waste. We evaluate FOGNITE on a real world testbed of Raspberry Pi devices, showing up to a 93.7% improvement in load balancing accuracy and a 63.2% reduction in energy waste compared to conventional architectures. By shifting smart grid control from reactive correction to proactive optimization, FOGNITE represents a step toward more intelligent, adaptive, and sustainable energy infrastructures

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.16668 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** illustrates the operational flow. The federated learning loop ensures continuous local adaptation without violating privacy. Reinforcement agents dynamically schedule tasks using state observations and policy updates. Before execution, all actions undergo real-time simulation within the digital twin infrastructure, ensuring safe deployment. This layered method allows FOGNITE to operate as a proactive, adaptive, an… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Quantitative comparison of FOCCA and FOG [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Temporal analysis showing FOGNITE’s error [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

18 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

[11]

A PID-Controlled Non-Negative Tensor Factorization Model for Analyzing Missing Data in NILM

D. Shi, “Non-intrusive load monitoring with missing data imputation based on tensor decomposition,” arXiv preprint , 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.07012

work page Pith review arXiv 2024
[1]

Forecasting energy power consumption using federated learning in edge computing devices,

E. M. de Moraes Sarmento, I. F. Ribeiro, P. R. N. Marciano, Y. G. Neris, H. R. O. Rocha, V. F. S. Mota, and R. da Silva Villa¸ ca, “Forecasting energy power consumption using federated learning in edge computing devices,” Internet Things , vol. 25, p. 101050, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iot.2023.101050

work page arXiv 2024
[2]

Comparative analysis of machine learning techniques for non-intrusive load monitoring,

N. Shabbir, K. Vassiljeva, H. Nourollahi Hokmabad, O. Husev, E. Petlenkov, and J. Belikov, “Comparative analysis of machine learning techniques for non-intrusive load monitoring,” Electronics, vol. 13, no. 8, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9292/13/8/1420

work page 2024
[4]

Focca: Fog– cloud continuum architecture for data imputation and load balancing in smart grids,

M. T. Barbosa, E. B. Barros, V. F. Mota, D. M. Leite Filho, L. N. Sampaio, B. T. Kuehne, B. G. Batista, D. Turgut, and M. L. Peixoto, “Focca: Fog– cloud continuum architecture for data imputation and load balancing in smart grids,” Computer Net- works, vol. 258, p. 111031, 2025

work page 2025
[5]

Hierarchical scheduling mechanisms in multi-level fog computing,

M. L. Peixoto, T. A. Genez, and L. F. Bittencourt, “Hierarchical scheduling mechanisms in multi-level fog computing,” IEEE Transactions on Services Computing, vol. 15, pp. 2824–2837, 2022

work page 2022
[6]

Sla-based task offloading for energy consumption constrained workflows in fog computing,

H. Li, X. Zhang, H. Li, X. Duan, and C. Xu, “Sla-based task offloading for energy consumption constrained workflows in fog computing,” Future Generation Computer Systems , vol. 156, pp. 64–76, 2024

work page 2024
[7]

On incen- tivizing resource allocation and task offloading for cooperative edge computing,

W. Chu, X. Jia, Z. Yu, J. Lui, and Y. Lin, “On incen- tivizing resource allocation and task offloading for cooperative edge computing,” Computer Networks , vol. 246, p. 110428, 2024

work page 2024
[8]

A survey on smart grid technologies and applications,

G. Dileep, “A survey on smart grid technologies and applications,” Renewable Energy, vol. 146, pp. 2589– 2625, 2020

work page 2020

Show all 18 references

[9]

A self-stabilizing and auto-provisioning orchestration for microservices in edge-cloud con- tinuum,

B. Cai, X. Wang, B. Wang, M. Yang, Y. Guo, and Q. Guo, “A self-stabilizing and auto-provisioning orchestration for microservices in edge-cloud con- tinuum,” Computer Networks , vol. 242, p. 110279, 2024

2024
[10]

Fog computing model to orchestrate the consumption and production of energy in mi- crogrids,

E. Barros, D. Filho, B. Batista, B. Kuehne, and M. Peixoto, “Fog computing model to orchestrate the consumption and production of energy in mi- crogrids,” Sensors, vol. 19, 2019

2019
[12]

Energy-aware resource management in fog computing for iot applications: A review, taxonomy, and future directions,

S. Hashemi, A. Sahafi, A. Rahmani, and M. Bohlouli, “Energy-aware resource management in fog computing for iot applications: A review, taxonomy, and future directions,” Software: Practice and Experience, vol. 54, pp. 109–148, 2024

2024
[13]

Fog computing for smart grid systems in the 5g environment: Chal- 12 lenges and solutions,

A. Kumari, S. Tanwar, S. Tyagi, N. Kumar, M. S. Obaidat, and J. J. Rodrigues, “Fog computing for smart grid systems in the 5g environment: Chal- 12 lenges and solutions,” IEEE Wireless Communica- tions, vol. 26, pp. 47–53, 2019

2019
[14]

Lbatsm: Load- balancing aware task selection and migration ap- proach in fog computing environment,

R. Singh, G. Sikka, and L. Awasthi, “Lbatsm: Load- balancing aware task selection and migration ap- proach in fog computing environment,” IEEE Sys- tems Journal , vol. 18, pp. 796–804, 2024

2024
[15]

Fdpr: A novel fog data prediction and recovery using efficient dl in iot net- works,

M. A. P. Putra, A. P. Hermawan, C. I. Nwakanma, D.-S. Kim, and J.-M. Lee, “Fdpr: A novel fog data prediction and recovery using efficient dl in iot net- works,” IEEE Internet of Things Journal , vol. 10, no. 19, pp. 16 895–16 906, 2023

2023
[16]

An integrated deep learning and edge computing framework for intelli- gent energy management in iot-based smart cities,

R. Udayakumar, B. Mahesh, R. Sathiyakala, K. Thandapani, A. Choubey, A. Khurramov, L. H. Alzubaidi, and J. Sravanthi, “An integrated deep learning and edge computing framework for intelli- gent energy management in iot-based smart cities,” in ICTEASD 2023 , 2023, pp. 32–38

2023
[17]

Optimal energy- efficient resource allocation and fault tolerance scheme for task offloading in iot-fog computing net- works,

B. Premalatha and P. Prakasam, “Optimal energy- efficient resource allocation and fault tolerance scheme for task offloading in iot-fog computing net- works,” Computer Networks , vol. 238, p. 110080, 2024

2024
[18]

Workload allocation in iot-fog-cloud ar- chitecture using a multi-objective genetic algo- rithm,

M. Abbasi, E. Mohammadi Pasand, and M. R. Khosravi, “Workload allocation in iot-fog-cloud ar- chitecture using a multi-objective genetic algo- rithm,” Journal of grid computing , vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 43–56, 2020

2020
[19]

Energy-aware deep learning on resource- constrained hardware,

J. Millar, H. Haddadi, and A. Madhavapeddy, “Energy-aware deep learning on resource- constrained hardware,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.12523, 2025

2025 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [11]

A PID-Controlled Non-Negative Tensor Factorization Model for Analyzing Missing Data in NILM

D. Shi, “Non-intrusive load monitoring with missing data imputation based on tensor decomposition,” arXiv preprint , 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.07012

work page Pith review arXiv 2024

[2] [1]

Forecasting energy power consumption using federated learning in edge computing devices,

E. M. de Moraes Sarmento, I. F. Ribeiro, P. R. N. Marciano, Y. G. Neris, H. R. O. Rocha, V. F. S. Mota, and R. da Silva Villa¸ ca, “Forecasting energy power consumption using federated learning in edge computing devices,” Internet Things , vol. 25, p. 101050, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iot.2023.101050

work page arXiv 2024

[3] [2]

Comparative analysis of machine learning techniques for non-intrusive load monitoring,

N. Shabbir, K. Vassiljeva, H. Nourollahi Hokmabad, O. Husev, E. Petlenkov, and J. Belikov, “Comparative analysis of machine learning techniques for non-intrusive load monitoring,” Electronics, vol. 13, no. 8, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9292/13/8/1420

work page 2024

[4] [4]

Focca: Fog– cloud continuum architecture for data imputation and load balancing in smart grids,

M. T. Barbosa, E. B. Barros, V. F. Mota, D. M. Leite Filho, L. N. Sampaio, B. T. Kuehne, B. G. Batista, D. Turgut, and M. L. Peixoto, “Focca: Fog– cloud continuum architecture for data imputation and load balancing in smart grids,” Computer Net- works, vol. 258, p. 111031, 2025

work page 2025

[5] [5]

Hierarchical scheduling mechanisms in multi-level fog computing,

M. L. Peixoto, T. A. Genez, and L. F. Bittencourt, “Hierarchical scheduling mechanisms in multi-level fog computing,” IEEE Transactions on Services Computing, vol. 15, pp. 2824–2837, 2022

work page 2022

[6] [6]

Sla-based task offloading for energy consumption constrained workflows in fog computing,

H. Li, X. Zhang, H. Li, X. Duan, and C. Xu, “Sla-based task offloading for energy consumption constrained workflows in fog computing,” Future Generation Computer Systems , vol. 156, pp. 64–76, 2024

work page 2024

[7] [7]

On incen- tivizing resource allocation and task offloading for cooperative edge computing,

W. Chu, X. Jia, Z. Yu, J. Lui, and Y. Lin, “On incen- tivizing resource allocation and task offloading for cooperative edge computing,” Computer Networks , vol. 246, p. 110428, 2024

work page 2024

[8] [8]

A survey on smart grid technologies and applications,

G. Dileep, “A survey on smart grid technologies and applications,” Renewable Energy, vol. 146, pp. 2589– 2625, 2020

work page 2020