HE2C: A Holistic Approach for Allocating Latency-Sensitive AI Tasks across Edge-Cloud

Minseo Kim; Mohsen Amini Salehi; Wei Shu

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

HE2C: A Holistic Approach for Allocating Latency-Sensitive AI Tasks across Edge-Cloud

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read HE2C claims that combining deadline-energy-memory feasibility checks, an energy-accuracy trade-off handler, and a rescue module raises on-time completion of latency-sensitive deep-learning tasks to about 95% while preserving battery and…

desk verdict The paper's central rescue module claim is absent from the algorithms, and the regression-based handler is unspecified, so the evaluation cannot support the headline results. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.19487 v1 pith:ZXZT2T47 submitted 2024-11-29 cs.DC

Minseo Kim , Wei Shu , Mohsen Amini Salehi This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.DC

keywords edge-cloudcontinuumlatency-sensitiveAItasksresourceallocationenergy-accuracytrade-offfeasibilitycheckrescuemoduleapproximatecomputingdeeplearninginferencescheduling

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 proposes HE2C, a task-allocation framework for deep-learning inference jobs that must finish by a deadline while running on battery-powered edge devices with cloud backup. HE2C's claim is that by checking deadline, energy, and memory feasibility on both edge and cloud before deciding, then applying an energy-accuracy trade-off model when both sites are feasible, and finally using a rescue module that trades a little accuracy for lower latency under load, a system can complete far more tasks on time without draining the wearable's battery or degrading prediction quality. The authors test this on face, text, and image recognition workloads and report on-time completion around 95%, up from roughly 90-92% without the multi-factor feasibility check or the rescue module. A sympathetic reader would take the central claim to be that holistic multi-metric admission control beats optimizing any single metric.

What carries the argument

The central object is the three-stage admission-and-allocation pipeline. The load-bearing pieces are the feasibility checkers (Algorithms 1 and 2) that compare estimated end-to-end latency, energy, and memory against the task deadline and the device's remaining battery and memory; the energy-accuracy trade-off handler (Algorithm 3), a linear-regression model that scores whether cloud or edge better satisfies a task's energy and accuracy priorities when both pass feasibility; and the rescue module (Algorithm 4), which drops a task only when even a warm-start edge execution misses its deadline or would overdraw the battery. Together they convert a single-metric scheduling decision into a three-gate admission decision, and that gating is what the paper credits for the higher on-time completion rate.

What would settle it

Train the energy-accuracy trade-off handler on one workload distribution, then run HE2C on a different distribution of latency-sensitive tasks (for example, larger models or very tight deadlines) and compare placements against an oracle that always chooses the site with the true lower energy cost at equal accuracy; if the handler's choices match the oracle no better than a simple 'pick cloud whenever its estimated latency is lower' rule, the claimed holistic advantage would not hold for unseen tasks.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

HE2C is a holistic edge-to-cloud scheduler for latency-sensitive deep-learning tasks. It consists of three cooperating pieces: a feasibility-check module that rejects a placement if the deadline, battery energy, or edge memory is insufficient; a resource allocator whose energy-accuracy trade-off handler uses linear regression over task type, estimated edge/cloud energy, and edge/cloud accuracy to pick the site when both are feasible; and a rescue module that, when edge resources are critically low, runs the task on the edge with a warm-start model rather than dropping it. The authors' central discovery is that this combination sustains roughly 95% on-time task completion across increasing workload volumes, preserves battery, and keeps inference accuracy near 94-97% with low latency, whereas single-metric baselines fluctuate around 90-92% completion or sacrifice one of the metrics.

Load-bearing premise

The energy-accuracy trade-off handler is a linear regression over task type, estimated energy on each site, and accuracy on each site, but the paper does not specify the regression's features, training data, or coefficients; HE2C's reported advantage over other handlers assumes this fitted model makes correct placement choices for tasks outside its training distribution.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If HE2C's feasibility-check module is correct, then multi-factor admission control (deadline plus energy plus memory) should keep on-time completion near 95% even as task volume grows, where a latency-only checker degrades to roughly 90-92%.
If the energy-accuracy trade-off handler works as described, then tasks feasible on both edge and cloud can be placed by a learned score that balances energy and accuracy, sustaining accuracy around 94-97%.
If the rescue module is correct, then under resource pressure, executing warm-start edge inference instead of dropping tasks raises on-time completion from about 90-91% to about 95%.
If all three modules operate together, HE2C should extend edge battery lifespan while meeting latency constraints, which is its stated objective for wearable assistive systems.

Reading between the lines

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

The feasibility-check logic is task-agnostic and could be applied to other deadline-constrained inference workloads, including LLM-based assistants on phones or AR glasses, by swapping the per-task latency and energy estimators.
The rescue module's warm-start edge assumption implies a model-caching policy; one testable extension is to have HE2C decide which DL models to keep warm in edge memory based on predicted task mix, rather than assuming warm-start availability.
The paper's distinction between urgent and best-effort tasks (in its future-work section) suggests a natural extension: priority-aware admission control where the feasibility checkers treat deadlines as soft for best-effort tasks and hard for urgent ones.
Because the trade-off handler's regression is unspecified, a concrete follow-up is to publish the feature set and coefficients, or replace the regression with an online bandit, so the placement decision can be validated and adapted per device.

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

Dear colleague,

I read HE2C and agree with the skeptical take. The paper's central claim about a rescue module that trades accuracy for latency via approximate computing is not backed by any algorithm or experiment in the text. Algorithm 4 does nothing but admit warm-start tasks to the edge if they meet deadline and battery checks; there is no quantization, distillation, or approximate inference anywhere. So the abstract overstates the contribution, and the 4-5 point completion-rate gain in Fig. 4 can only be attributed to warm-start admission, not accuracy-latency trading.

What's new is limited. The paper combines known pieces: feasibility checks, offloading, and a regression-based handler. The integration is plausibly useful, but the handler is a black box: a linear regression with features listed but no coefficients, training data, or validation. The whole advantage of HE2C over simpler policies rests on this unspecified model, so the evaluation cannot be reproduced or checked.

The paper does have some strengths. Algorithms 1 and 2 are simple and clearly specified. The experimental setup is described reasonably, and the comparison of feasibility checkers versus a single-factor latency checker is a sensible experiment, even if only reported as a one-line percentage. The related work is appropriate and honest.

The soft spots are proportional. The evaluation lacks error bars, run counts, and public artifacts, so we can't judge statistical significance. The figure caption in Section IV.C mixes units (Joules and milliseconds), which is sloppy. And the rescue module description is a genuine internal contradiction with the abstract. That is not a minor omission; it's the paper's claimed key throughput mechanism.

Who is this for? Someone working on edge-cloud scheduling might find the architecture a starting point, but as written it's not a complete contribution. A serious referee would need the missing model details, the rescue module implementation, and the simulator code before the claims can be evaluated. I would desk reject it and invite a resubmission with the missing information.

Best.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes HE2C, a framework for allocating latency-sensitive deep learning tasks between edge and cloud resources. It comprises three components: a feasibility-check module for cloud and edge execution, a resource allocator with an energy-accuracy trade-off handler, and a rescue module described as using approximate computing to trade accuracy for latency. The evaluation uses the E2C simulator with four DL applications and reports that HE2C improves on-time task completion rates while preserving battery and accuracy. The central claim is that HE2C significantly improves throughput under strict latency and energy constraints.

Significance. If fully specified and verified, HE2C would be a useful holistic scheduler for latency-sensitive AI workloads in edge-cloud systems. The feasibility-check algorithms are simple and plausible, and the choice of four diverse DL applications is appropriate. However, the two most distinctive components—the energy-accuracy trade-off handler and the approximate-computing rescue module—are either unspecified or not implemented as described, and the evaluation currently provides insufficient evidence for the reported gains. The work is at the stage of a promising architecture rather than a validated system.

major comments (4)

[Section III-C, Algorithm 3] The energy-accuracy trade-off handler is the central decision component when both edge and cloud are feasible, but it is not specified: the text says it is based on a linear regression model [14] and lists candidate inputs (task type, estimated cloud/edge energy, cloud/edge accuracy), yet no regression equation, feature encoding, training data, fitted coefficients, or decision threshold is given. Because Section IV.C attributes the method's advantage to this handler, the reader cannot reproduce the placement decisions or assess generalization to tasks outside the training distribution. The authors must provide the full model specification and validation.
[Section III-D, Algorithm 4; Abstract] The Abstract and Section III.D present the rescue module as enhancing throughput by leveraging approximate computing to trade accuracy for latency, but Algorithm 4 contains only a warm-start admission check based on deadline, warm-start completion time, energy, and warm-start status; no accuracy input and no approximate inference variant (quantization, distillation, downsampling, or similar) appear anywhere in the paper. The completion-rate gain attributed to this module in Section IV.D (about 95% vs 90-91%) is therefore a test of admission control/dropping, not of the advertised accuracy-latency trade. Either implement and evaluate the approximate-computing mechanism or revise the contribution claims accordingly.
[Section IV, Figs. 2-4] The evaluation section reports only prose summaries and figure captions; no actual plots are included in the version under review, and the text gives no number of runs, error bars, confidence intervals, or statistical tests. Without these, claims such as "consistently achieving around 95% task completion" (Section IV.B) and "significant advantage" (Section IV.D) cannot be verified, and it is impossible to tell whether the reported differences (e.g., 95% vs 90-92%) are within run-to-run variability. The authors should include the figures with error bars, state the number of repetitions, and report per-condition means and variances.
[Section IV.A, Section III.C] There is a potential circularity risk in the evaluation: the energy-accuracy trade-off handler is a fitted regression model, and the experiments use the authors' own E2C simulator with workload traces that are not described in detail. If the same workload data were used to fit the regression and then to compare handlers, the comparison favors the fitted model by construction. The paper should specify how the regression was trained, which workloads were held out, and whether the reported results include out-of-sample tasks.

minor comments (5)

[Section IV.C, Fig. 3] The text says the energy-accuracy handler achieves "low latency (approximately 1-2 J)" and later "moderate latency (around 2-3 ms)," mixing energy units (J) with latency units (ms); this should be corrected.
[Abstract] The phrase "maximize system prolong battery lifespan" is ungrammatical and should be rephrased.
[Section III-D, Algorithm 4] Algorithm 4 uses strict inequalities (δ_i > c_i and ϵ_e_i ≤ E), so tasks whose deadline equals warm-start completion time or whose energy consumption equals remaining battery are dropped; clarify whether equality should be feasible.
[References] Several listed references, including [8], [10], [11], and [12], are not cited in the text; either cite them or remove them from the bibliography.
[Section IV.A] The paper would benefit from a table summarizing the workload parameters (deadline distributions, task types, model sizes, accuracy values) used in the E2C simulator, since the current description is too high-level to reproduce.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper is an empirical systems study with no equation-level derivation chain; the main concerns are under-specification of the fitted trade-off handler and a mismatch between the abstract's approximate-computing description and Algorithm 4, neither of which is a circular reduction.

full rationale

HE2C is presented as an algorithmic framework, not a derivation from first principles. The energy-accuracy trade-off handler is described as a linear regression (Section III-C) but no coefficients, training set, target variable, or train/test split are provided; this is an under-specification that prevents independent reproduction, but the paper does not exhibit a fitted parameter that is then renamed as a prediction. The rescue module (Algorithm 4) is specified only as a warm-start deadline/energy admission check, with no approximate-computing accuracy-latency trade, which contradicts the abstract's characterization; however, this is a correctness/description gap, not a circular reduction. The evaluation uses the authors' own E2C simulator [15] and prior co-authored work ([1], [13]) as tools or background, but these citations are not used as load-bearing justification for the claimed results. No uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from self-citations. Therefore, no specific circular step can be quoted; the score reflects minor self-citation in the evaluation toolchain without central reduction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a fitted regression model, an unvalidated simulator, warm-start assumptions, and unreported workload parameters. These are not physics-style free parameters, but they are adjustable inputs the paper does not quantify, so the reader cannot separate genuine generalization from assumptions built into the evaluation.

free parameters (3)

energy-accuracy trade-off handler regression coefficients = not reported
The linear regression model in Section III-C chooses between cloud and edge for tasks feasible on both; its coefficients are fitted to data but never disclosed, so the reported improvements in Fig. 3 are not reproducible.
warm-start execution time estimates for rescue module = not reported
Algorithm 4 relies on estimated warm-start completion times to decide dispatch or drop; the values and how they are obtained are not given.
task profile estimates (latency, energy, memory, accuracy) = not reported
Feasibility checkers in Algorithms 1-2 use per-task estimates of end-to-end latency, upload energy, inference energy, and memory; the workload generation for these values is described qualitatively in Section IV-A.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption The E2C simulator faithfully represents real edge-cloud execution, including latency, energy, and memory behavior.
All experimental results in Section IV are produced through this simulator; no validation against real edge-cloud traces is shown.
domain assumption The linear regression trade-off handler learns a placement rule that generalizes to tasks beyond its training data.
Section III-C introduces the handler as a linear regression model but gives no training procedure or validation, yet the claimed benefits rely on its predictions.
ad hoc to paper Rescue tasks are always in warm start, so no cold-start delay is incurred for the rescue path.
Algorithm 4 only dispatches a task if it is in warm start, but the paper does not describe how warm-start status is maintained or what happens for cold-start tasks.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of HE2C: A Holistic Approach for Allocating Latency-Sensitive AI Tasks across Edge-Cloud." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZXZT2T47

@misc{pith2026241119487,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: HE2C: A Holistic Approach for Allocating Latency-Sensitive AI Tasks across Edge-Cloud},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZXZT2T47}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.19487}
}

read the original abstract

The high computational, memory, and energy demands of Deep Learning (DL) applications often exceed the capabilities of battery-powered edge devices, creating difficulties in meeting task deadlines and accuracy requirements. Unlike previous solutions that optimize a single metric (e.g., accuracy or energy efficiency), HE2C framework is designed to holistically address the latency, memory, accuracy, throughput, and energy demands of DL applications across edge-cloud continuum, thereby, delivering a more comprehensive and effective user experience. HE2C comprises three key modules: (a) a "feasibility-check module that evaluates the likelihood of meeting deadlines across both edge and cloud resources; (b) a "resource allocation strategy" that maximizes energy efficiency without sacrificing the inference accuracy; and (c) a "rescue module" that enhances throughput by leveraging approximate computing to trade accuracy for latency when necessary. Our primary objective is to maximize system prolong battery lifespan, throughput, and accuracy while adhering to strict latency constraints. Experimental evaluations in the context of wearable technologies for blind and visually impaired users demonstrate that HE2C significantly improves task throughput via completing a larger number of tasks within their specified deadlines, while preserving edge device battery and maintaining prediction accuracy with minimal latency impact. These results underscore HE2C's potential as a robust solution for resource management in latency-sensitive, energy-constrained edge-to-cloud environments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.19487 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Impact of feasibility checkers on task completion rate across varying [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Comparative analysis of trade-off handlers across accuracy, energy, and latency metrics [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Impact of rescue module on improving on-time task completion rates [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

EdgeWisePersona: A Dataset for On-Device User Profiling from Natural Language Interactions
cs.HC 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

EdgeWisePersona is a new synthetic dataset and benchmark for reconstructing structured smart-home user routines from multi-session dialogues, on which large LLMs clearly outperform small on-device models.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

15 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[14]

Peck, and G

Montgomery, Douglas C., Elizabeth A. Peck, and G. Geoffrey Vining. “Introduction to linear regression analysis.“ John Wiley & Sons, 2021

work page 2021
[1]

SM Zobaed, Ali Mokhtari, Jaya Prakash Champati, Mathieu Kourouma, Mohsen Amini Salehi, “Edge-MultiAI: Multi-Tenancy of Latency- Sensitive Deep Learning Applications on Edge.“ in Proceedings of the 15th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Utility and Cloud Computing (UCC ’22), Vancouver, Washington, USA, Dec. 2022

work page 2022
[2]

Mohammad Sadegh Aslanpour, Adel N. Toosi, Muhammad Aamir Cheema, Mohan Baruwal Chhetri, Mohsen Amini Salehi, “Load Bal- ancing for Heterogeneous Serverless Edge Computing: A Performance- Driven and Empirical Approach.“ Future Generation Computer Systems (FGCS), vol. 154, pp. 266—280, May 2024

work page 2024
[3]

“Internet of Things (IoT): A vision, architectural elements, and future directions.“ Future generation computer systems 29, no

Gubbi, Jayavardhana, Rajkumar Buyya, Slaven Marusic, and Marimuthu Palaniswami. “Internet of Things (IoT): A vision, architectural elements, and future directions.“ Future generation computer systems 29, no. 7 (2013): 1645-1660

work page 2013
[4]

“MedGlasses: A wearable smart- glasses-based drug pill recognition system using deep learning for visually impaired chronic patients.“ IEEE Access 8 (2020): 17013- 17024

Chang, Wan-Jung, Liang-Bi Chen, Chia-Hao Hsu, Jheng-Hao Chen, Tzu-Chin Yang, and Cheng-Pei Lin. “MedGlasses: A wearable smart- glasses-based drug pill recognition system using deep learning for visually impaired chronic patients.“ IEEE Access 8 (2020): 17013- 17024

work page 2020
[5]

“Resource management in fog/edge computing: a survey on architectures, infrastructure, and al- gorithms.“ ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) 52, no

Hong, Cheol-Ho, and Blesson Varghese. “Resource management in fog/edge computing: a survey on architectures, infrastructure, and al- gorithms.“ ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) 52, no. 5 (2019): 1-37

work page 2019
[6]

“RES: Real-time video stream analytics using edge enhanced clouds.“ IEEE Transactions on Cloud Computing 10, no

Ali, Muhammad, Ashiq Anjum, Omer Rana, Ali Reza Zamani, Daniel Balouek-Thomert, and Manish Parashar. “RES: Real-time video stream analytics using edge enhanced clouds.“ IEEE Transactions on Cloud Computing 10, no. 2 (2020): 792-804

work page 2020
[7]

Yousefpour, Ashkan, Caleb Fung, Tam Nguyen, Krishna Kadiyala, Fatemeh Jalali, Amirreza Niakanlahiji, Jian Kong, and Jason P. Jue. “All one needs to know about fog computing and related edge computing paradigms: A complete survey.“ Journal of Systems Architecture 98 (2019): 289-330

work page 2019

Show all 15 references

[8]

“Baymax: Qos awareness and increased utilization for non-preemptive accelerators in warehouse scale computers.“ ACM SIGPLAN Notices 51, no

Chen, Quan, Hailong Yang, Jason Mars, and Lingjia Tang. “Baymax: Qos awareness and increased utilization for non-preemptive accelerators in warehouse scale computers.“ ACM SIGPLAN Notices 51, no. 4 (2016): 681-696

2016
[9]

Zhao, Han, Weihao Cui, Quan Chen, Jingwen Leng, Kai Yu, Deze Zeng, Chao Li, and Minyi Guo. “CODA: Improving resource utilization by slimming and co-locating DNN and CPU jobs.“ In Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems (ICDCS), pp. 853...

2020
[10]

“Edge analytics in the internet of things.“ IEEE Pervasive Computing 14, no

Satyanarayanan, Mahadev, Pieter Simoens, Yu Xiao, Padmanabhan Pillai, Zhuo Chen, Kiryong Ha, Wenlu Hu, and Brandon Amos. “Edge analytics in the internet of things.“ IEEE Pervasive Computing 14, no. 2 (2015): 24-31

2015
[11]

“Edge computing: current trends, research challenges and future direc- tions.“ Computing 103, no

Carvalho, Gonc ¸alo, Bruno Cabral, Vasco Pereira, and Jorge Bernardino. “Edge computing: current trends, research challenges and future direc- tions.“ Computing 103, no. 5 (2021): 993-1023

2021
[12]

“Real-time mask identification for COVID-19: An edge-computing-based deep learning framework.“ IEEE Internet of Things Journal 8, no

Kong, Xiangjie, Kailai Wang, Shupeng Wang, Xiaojie Wang, Xin Jiang, Yi Guo, Guojiang Shen, Xin Chen, and Qichao Ni. “Real-time mask identification for COVID-19: An edge-computing-based deep learning framework.“ IEEE Internet of Things Journal 8, no. 21 (2021): 15929- 15938

2021
[13]

Mokhtari, Ali, M. A. Hossen, Pooyan Jamshidi, and Mohsen Amini Salehi. “FELARE: fair scheduling of machine learning applications on heterogeneous edge systems.“ In Proceedings of International Confer- ence On Cloud Computing. 2022

2022
[15]

Mokhtari, Ali, Drake Rawls, Tony Huynh, Jeremiah Green, and Mohsen Amini Salehi. “E2C: A Visual Simulator to Reinforce Education of Het- erogeneous Computing Systems.“ In 2023 IEEE International Parallel and Distributed Processing Symposium Workshops (IPDPSW), pp. 270-

2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [14]

Peck, and G

Montgomery, Douglas C., Elizabeth A. Peck, and G. Geoffrey Vining. “Introduction to linear regression analysis.“ John Wiley & Sons, 2021

work page 2021

[2] [1]

SM Zobaed, Ali Mokhtari, Jaya Prakash Champati, Mathieu Kourouma, Mohsen Amini Salehi, “Edge-MultiAI: Multi-Tenancy of Latency- Sensitive Deep Learning Applications on Edge.“ in Proceedings of the 15th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Utility and Cloud Computing (UCC ’22), Vancouver, Washington, USA, Dec. 2022

work page 2022

[3] [2]

Mohammad Sadegh Aslanpour, Adel N. Toosi, Muhammad Aamir Cheema, Mohan Baruwal Chhetri, Mohsen Amini Salehi, “Load Bal- ancing for Heterogeneous Serverless Edge Computing: A Performance- Driven and Empirical Approach.“ Future Generation Computer Systems (FGCS), vol. 154, pp. 266—280, May 2024

work page 2024

[4] [3]

“Internet of Things (IoT): A vision, architectural elements, and future directions.“ Future generation computer systems 29, no

Gubbi, Jayavardhana, Rajkumar Buyya, Slaven Marusic, and Marimuthu Palaniswami. “Internet of Things (IoT): A vision, architectural elements, and future directions.“ Future generation computer systems 29, no. 7 (2013): 1645-1660

work page 2013

[5] [4]

“MedGlasses: A wearable smart- glasses-based drug pill recognition system using deep learning for visually impaired chronic patients.“ IEEE Access 8 (2020): 17013- 17024

Chang, Wan-Jung, Liang-Bi Chen, Chia-Hao Hsu, Jheng-Hao Chen, Tzu-Chin Yang, and Cheng-Pei Lin. “MedGlasses: A wearable smart- glasses-based drug pill recognition system using deep learning for visually impaired chronic patients.“ IEEE Access 8 (2020): 17013- 17024

work page 2020

[6] [5]

“Resource management in fog/edge computing: a survey on architectures, infrastructure, and al- gorithms.“ ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) 52, no

Hong, Cheol-Ho, and Blesson Varghese. “Resource management in fog/edge computing: a survey on architectures, infrastructure, and al- gorithms.“ ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) 52, no. 5 (2019): 1-37

work page 2019

[7] [6]

“RES: Real-time video stream analytics using edge enhanced clouds.“ IEEE Transactions on Cloud Computing 10, no

Ali, Muhammad, Ashiq Anjum, Omer Rana, Ali Reza Zamani, Daniel Balouek-Thomert, and Manish Parashar. “RES: Real-time video stream analytics using edge enhanced clouds.“ IEEE Transactions on Cloud Computing 10, no. 2 (2020): 792-804

work page 2020

[8] [7]

Yousefpour, Ashkan, Caleb Fung, Tam Nguyen, Krishna Kadiyala, Fatemeh Jalali, Amirreza Niakanlahiji, Jian Kong, and Jason P. Jue. “All one needs to know about fog computing and related edge computing paradigms: A complete survey.“ Journal of Systems Architecture 98 (2019): 289-330

work page 2019