Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 26 references

MAPO: A Multi-Objective Model for IoT Application Placement in a Fog Environment

T0 review · 5 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read MAPO claims that Pareto-based multi-objective placement in fog computing can cut IoT application completion time by up to 7.3 times, energy consumption by 23-68%, and economic cost by up to 27% compared with single-objective methods on…

desk verdict A credible multi-objective placement method with a completion-time result that holds up, but the headline energy savings are not supported by the evidence as presented. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.01153 v1 pith:NUILD74G submitted 2019-08-03 cs.DC

Narges Mehran , Dragi Kimovski , Radu Prodan This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.DC
keywords fogcomputingIoTapplicationplacementmulti-objectiveoptimizationNSGA-IIParetofrontierenergyconsumptioneconomiccostcompletiontime
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

This paper argues that treating IoT application placement in a fog environment as a three-objective Pareto optimization problem performs better than optimizing a single objective or a weighted sum. The proposed system, MAPO, models an application as a finite state machine of lightweight components and searches for non-dominated placements that trade off completion time, energy consumption, and economic cost. In simulated and small real testbeds with medical applications (augmented reality, insulin pump, mental health care), MAPO claims reductions in completion time by up to 7.3 times, energy by 23-68%, and economic cost by up to 27% relative to FSPP and Edge-ward. If true, this gives fog operators a principled way to place latency-sensitive IoT services near the data source instead of relying on Cloud-heavy heuristics.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the combination of a finite-state-machine application model with three analytic objective functions and a non-dominated sorting genetic search. An application is a state machine whose states are lightweight components; placing component $m_i$ on device $r_j$ assigns each component a device, and the objectives are computed from the chain of transitions: completion time $T(A,R)$ from Eqs. (1)-(3) adds computation time (instructions over CPU speed) to communication time (data size over bandwidth); energy $E(A,R)$ from Eqs. (4)-(7) adds computation power $\varrho^p_j$, communication power $\varrho^m_j$, and a hardware constant $\epsilon_j$; cost $C(A,R)$ from Eqs. (8)-(9) sums processing, storage, and ingress communication charges. NSGA-II evolves a population of full placements, ranks them by Pareto dominance, and returns a frontier of non-dominated solutions; an automated decision module then selects one low-latency placement for deployment. The key identity is Pareto dominance itself: one placement beats another only if it is no worse on every objective and strictly better on at least one.

What would settle it

Run the mental health care application on the real-world testbed described in Section VII at the stated workloads and data sizes, measuring actual device power draw with a power meter at each Fog device, and compare measured energy to MAPO's predicted $E(A,R)$; a discrepancy exceeding the claimed improvement margin would refute the energy objective and the headline energy savings.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the optimal placement of an IoT application in a fog hierarchy is not a single-objective scheduling problem but a three-way tradeoff among completion time, energy consumption, and economic cost, and that a Pareto search over these three objectives finds placements that dominate single-objective or weighted-sum heuristics. In the medical IoT case studies considered, MAPO reports completion time reductions of up to 7.3 times versus FSPP and Edge-ward, energy reductions of 23-68% versus FSPP in most settings, and cost reductions of up to 27%; the main tradeoff is that MAPO can consume up to about 54% more energy than Edge-ward, a tradeoff the Pareto formulation makes explicit rather than hides. The paper presents these numbers as evidence that near-data placement on low-capability mobile edge devices, chosen by multi-objective search, outperforms Cloud-centric or gateway-centric placement rules for latency-sensitive workloads.

Load-bearing premise

The energy savings are computed from the analytic model in Eqs. (4)-(6) using listed power constants, not measured on the real testbed; if those constants are inaccurate, the claimed 23-68% energy reductions are not empirically validated.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For latency-sensitive IoT applications, placing components on mobile edge devices close to sensors can cut completion time by 3-7x compared with Cloud- or gateway-oriented placements.
  • Operators who optimize only one objective (e.g., cost or latency) forgo placements that are better on the other two; the Pareto frontier makes the tradeoff explicit and lets a decision rule choose the operating point.
  • In the tested workloads, communication latency, not data volume, dominates completion time, so placement algorithms should prioritize device proximity over bandwidth or Cloud power.
  • Fog devices are the energy-efficient choice for small applications, while Cloud resources become competitive at high CPU workloads; a placement optimizer needs both tiers to navigate this crossover.
  • The search reaches stable solution quality (measured by hypervolume) around 12,500 evaluations and scales to 30 components with a modest increase in optimizer runtime.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the objective functions and search procedure are application-agnostic, the same Pareto placement machinery should transfer to other multi-tenant fog workloads (e.g., industrial control or smart retail); only the state machine and device constants need replacing.
  • The automated decision module is effectively a policy knob: switching from the low-latency rule to a cost-minimizing rule would select a different point on the same Pareto frontier, letting the same search serve different service-level objectives without re-optimization.
  • A cleaner test of the Pareto benefit would compare MAPO against a weighted-sum multi-objective baseline with the same three objectives, not only single-objective baselines; that would isolate whether the gains come from multi-objective search or from simply considering three criteria.
  • The analytic energy model could be calibrated per device with actual power measurements and then used not only at placement time but as a runtime scheduling signal; if calibration reveals large discrepancies, the reported 23-68% energy savings would need to be revised.
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.

Referee Report

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes MAPO, a Pareto-based NSGA-II approach for placing IoT applications on fog devices, optimizing three conflicting objectives: completion time, energy consumption, and economic cost. Applications are modeled as finite state machines, and the approach is evaluated on three medical IoT case studies (augmented reality, insulin pump, mental health care) in both a simulated fog environment and a small real-world testbed based on Raspberry Pi devices. MAPO is compared against two state-of-the-art methods, FSPP and Edge-ward. The claimed contributions are up to 7.3x lower completion time, 23-68% energy savings, and up to 27% lower economic cost.

Significance. If the evaluation were fully supported, MAPO would be a useful contribution to the IoT-fog placement literature, particularly because it applies a genuine multi-objective Pareto search instead of a weighted sum, and because it reports both simulation and real-testbed evaluations. The state-machine application model and the formulation of the three objectives are clearly presented and follow standard practice. The strengths are the two-tier evaluation, the comparison against two relevant baselines, and the use of the jMetal framework. However, the energy model is incomplete (the static energy term Es is never defined), the energy results are not backed by physical measurements on the real testbed, and the abstract's headline energy and completion-time claims are selectively supported or contradicted by the paper's own tables. These issues are load-bearing for the central claims, but they are addressable in a revision.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section III.D.2, Eq. (4)] The static energy term Es(mi,rj) is introduced in Eq. (4) but never defined, and no numerical value or formula is provided for any device class. Since the energy objective f2 in Eq. (10) is the sum of Eq. (4) over all components, the energy objective cannot be computed by a reader, and the energy entries in Tables IV-IX and Figures 6-7 are not reproducible from the manuscript. Either define Es as a device idle power scaled by time or provide its constant value; in either case, its contribution can change the Pareto front and the reported energy tradeoffs.
  2. [Section VII.B, Figures 6-7] The real-testbed experiment is described with Raspberry Pi devices, Docker, tc, and nc, but no power meter or energy measurement instrumentation is mentioned. The reported 'energy consumption' in the real-world evaluation therefore appears to be computed from the same analytic model in Section III rather than measured directly. Since Section VII.A states the goal is to 'validate the simulation results', the energy results should either be based on direct power measurements or explicitly labeled as model-based estimates; the current text does not distinguish these.
  3. [Abstract, Sections VI.C.1 and VI.C.2] The abstract's claim of 'decreasing the energy requirements by 23-68%' is not supported by the simulation results. In the data-size experiments, Table V and Table VI show EW consuming roughly 61% less energy than MAPO (e.g., 25 kJ vs 50-64 kJ for the insulin pump, and 25.1-26.3 kJ vs 62.5-65 kJ for mental health care). In the CPU-workload experiments, Table IX shows EW consuming 55% less energy than MAPO (e.g., 25 kJ vs 63 kJ at 2000 MI). The 23-68% range appears to be drawn only from the real-testbed comparison against FSPP, which is a selective reading. The energy claim should be revised to reflect the full set of reported results or explicitly qualified to the specific FSPP comparison.
  4. [Abstract, Sections VI.C, VII.C, and VIII] The headline 'up to 7.3 times' improvement in completion time is not backed by any result in the paper. Section VII.C.1 reports at most 6.9 times improvement compared to EW and 3 times compared to FSPP; Section VI.C.1 reports reductions of up to 70% (approximately 3.3 times). The number 7.3 appears in the abstract and conclusion but does not correspond to any table or figure. Please correct the number or provide the specific result that supports it.
  5. [Section IV and Section VI.A] The automated decision making module (ADM) that selects a single placement from the Pareto set is described only as 'extends on a simple and computationally efficient a-priori method [17]', without specifying the selection rule, weights, thresholds, or any parameter values. Because all reported objective values are those of the selected solution, the lack of an explicit ADM specification makes the evaluation not reproducible. Please provide the ADM decision formula and its parameter settings, or point to the exact equations in reference [17] that are used.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section III.D.1, Eq. (1)] In Eq. (1), the communication delay term appears as 'Datai BW k,j' without a division sign; it should be Datai / BWk,j, as is clear from the context and Eq. (8).
  2. [Section VI.A, Tables IV-IX] The paper states that objective results are 'averaged over 1000 runs for statistical significance', but no standard deviation, confidence interval, or error bars are reported anywhere. Please include variance information in the tables or an appendix to substantiate the statistical claim.
  3. [Tables II and III] The power constants ϱp_j and ϱm_j in Tables II and III, as well as the hardware constant ϵ_j, are presented without a source or derivation. Please cite the reference for these values or state explicitly that they are assumed, since they directly determine the energy objective.
  4. [Section VII.B, Table X] The real testbed uses an Intel Core i7-7700 VM as the CDC and Raspberry Pi 3 B+ as MEs, but Table X lists CPU capacities in MIPS without explaining how they were obtained or mapped from the simulated configuration; a short description of the benchmark or mapping method would improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: MAPO's objectives are defined a priori and the reported improvements are measured comparisons, not derived from fitted inputs or self-citation chains.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an algorithmic comparison: NSGA-II optimizes three a priori objectives (completion time via Eqs. (1)-(3), energy via Eqs. (4)-(7), and cost via Eqs. (8)-(9)), and the reported reductions in time, energy, and cost are evaluated by comparing MAPO placements with FSPP and EW on simulated and real testbeds. No parameter is fitted to the outcome being predicted; the objective functions are stated before the experiments and do not themselves encode the comparison results. The only dependency on prior work by the same authors is the automated decision making module, which 'extends on a simple and computationally efficient a-priori method [17]' (Section IV); this is an implementation choice for selecting one Pareto solution and is not the source of the claimed quantitative improvements. The energy model's static term Es in Eq. (4) is left undefined and Section VII.B does not describe power metering, so the energy savings are not fully reproducible from the manuscript; however, this is an empirical validation gap, not a circular derivation. Consequently, there is no step in which a prediction reduces by construction to its inputs.

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

The results are conditional on a set of device cost, power, and latency parameters chosen in Tables II and III, and on the sequential FSM application model. The ADM selection parameters are undisclosed. No new entities are postulated.

free parameters (5)
  • Per-tier cost coefficients (CP_j, CS_j, CR_j) = Cloud: 0.03, 1E-6, 3E-6; ISP GW: 0.035, 1.5E-5, 3.5E-6; WiFi/BTS: 0.04-0.05, 1E-5-2E-5, 3E-6-5E-6; ME: 0.02-0.04…
    These price inputs in Eq. (8) determine the economic cost objective; the reported cost reductions (up to 27%) are conditional on these arbitrary per-tier prices.
  • Per-tier power coefficients (ϱp_j, ϱm_j, ϵ_j) = Cloud: 1650 W, 1300 W; ISP GW: 530 W, 410 W; WiFi/BTS: 380-410 W, 1.8-2.0 W; ME: 2.5-3.2 W, 1.0-1.5 W; ϵ_j not tabulated
    These values feed the energy objective in Eqs. (4)-(6). The hardware constant ϵ_j is not listed, and the energy claims (23-68%) are sensitive to these choices.
  • Inter-tier latencies = ME: 1 ms, ME-WiFi: 10 ms, WiFi-ISP: 50 ms, ISP-CDC: 100 ms
    Latency enters the completion time through the bandwidth term in Eq. (1); changing these values would shift the trade-off results and the reported speedups.
  • ADM selection parameters = not disclosed
    The automated decision module picks the final Pareto solution using an unspecified extension of [17]; any weights or thresholds in this module can affect the single placement compared against FSPP and EW.
  • NSGA-II algorithm parameters = population = 100, evaluations up to 14000
    Crossover, mutation, and selection settings are not reported; these influence the Pareto set quality and hence the reported objective values.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Each application component has exactly one successor and one predecessor within an execution (sequential thread).
    Stated in Section III-C. This rules out parallel or branched component graphs, limiting the application model to linear pipelines.
  • domain assumption Fog device CPU, memory, storage, bandwidth, and power are static and known.
    Section III-B and Tables II-III fix device capacities and network bandwidth; contention, dynamic load, and failures are ignored.
  • domain assumption The transition function Γ and data item sizes are known in advance.
    The FSM model in Section III-A assumes complete knowledge of component interactions and data sizes.
  • standard math Multi-objective placement with completion time as an objective is NP-complete.
    Invoked in Section III-E to motivate the use of NSGA-II rather than an exact method.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of MAPO: A Multi-Objective Model for IoT Application Placement in a Fog Environment." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NUILD74G

@misc{pith2026190801153,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: MAPO: A Multi-Objective Model for IoT Application Placement in a Fog Environment},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NUILD74G}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.01153}
}
read the original abstract

The emergence of the Fog computing paradigm that leverages in-network virtualized resources raises important challenges in terms of resource and IoT application management in a heterogeneous environment offering only limited computing resources. In this work, we propose a novel Pareto-based approach for application placement close to the data sources called Multiobjective IoT application Placement in fOg (MAPO). MAPO models applications based on a finite state machine and uses three conflicting optimization objectives, namely completion time, energy consumption, and economic cost, considering both the computation and communication aspects. In contrast to existing solutions that optimize a single objective value, MAPO enables multi-objective energy and cost-aware application placement. To evaluate the quality of the MAPO placements, we created both simulated and real-world testbeds tailored for a set of medical IoT application case studies. Compared to the state-of-the-art approaches, MAPO reduces the economic cost by up to 27%, while decreasing the energy requirements by 23-68%, and optimizes the completion time by up to 7.3 times.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.01153 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Augmented reality application. Compute insulin level Send to doctor Compute pump command Control insulin pump Log insulin dose Retrieve patient records Blood sensor Insulin pump Review values Compute blood sugar Self desicsion To Doctor's decision Comparing with DB old records Without comparing with DB Record from DB Logging No logging [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Insulin pump application. specific rates (e.g., between 15 and 30 frames per second) and stitches them into a single large panorama view. b) Insulin pump: People who suffer from diabetes use a software-controlled system that must deliver the correct amount of insulin according to the current level of blood sugar. We modeled this software-based insulin pump [23] as a set of IoT micro-sensors embedded in the patient’s… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. IoT based mental health care application. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: MAPO hypervolume and execution time of Pareto [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Mental health care application time, energy, and cost for different data sizes. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Mental health care application time, energy, and cost for different CPU workloads. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

  1. [24]

    Multi-objective optimization of resource scheduling in fog computing using an improved nsga-ii

    Yan Sun, Fuhong Lin, and Haitao Xu. Multi-objective optimization of resource scheduling in fog computing using an improved nsga-ii. Wireless Personal Communications, pages 1–17, 2018

    work page 2018

  2. [17]

    Multi- objective service oriented network provisioning in ultra-scale systems

    Dragi Kimovski, Sashko Ristov, Roland Mathá, and Radu Prodan. Multi- objective service oriented network provisioning in ultra-scale systems. In European Conference on Parallel Processing, pages 529–540. Springer, 2017

    work page 2017

  3. [1]

    Dynamic resource provisioning through fog micro datacenter

    Mohammad Aazam and Eui-Nam Huh. Dynamic resource provisioning through fog micro datacenter. In Pervasive Computing and Communi- cation Workshops (PerCom Workshops), International Conference on , pages 105–110. IEEE, 2015

    work page 2015

  4. [2]

    Orchestration of microservices for iot using docker and edge computing

    Muhammad Alam, Joao Rufino, Joaquim Ferreira, Syed Hassan Ahmed, Nadir Shah, and Yuanfang Chen. Orchestration of microservices for iot using docker and edge computing. IEEE Communications Magazine , 56(9):118–123, 2018

    work page 2018

  5. [3]

    Stitching and surface recon- struction from endoscopic image sequences: A review of applications and methods

    Tobias Bergen and Thomas Wittenberg. Stitching and surface recon- struction from endoscopic image sequences: A review of applications and methods. IEEE J. Biomedical and Health Informatics , 20(1):304– 321, 2016

    work page 2016

  6. [4]

    Mobility-aware application scheduling in fog computing

    Luiz F Bittencourt, Javier Diaz-Montes, Rajkumar Buyya, Omer F Rana, and Manish Parashar. Mobility-aware application scheduling in fog computing. IEEE Cloud Computing , 4(2):26–35, 2017

    work page 2017

  7. [5]

    Fog computing and its role in the internet of things

    Flavio Bonomi, Rodolfo Milito, Jiang Zhu, and Sateesh Addepalli. Fog computing and its role in the internet of things. In Proceedings of the first edition of the MCC workshop on Mobile cloud computing , pages 13–16. ACM, 2012

    work page 2012

  8. [6]

    Brogi, S

    A. Brogi, S. Forti, and A. Ibrahim. How to best deploy your fog applications, probably. In 1st IEEE International Conference on Fog and Edge Computing (ICFEC) , pages 105–114, 2017

    work page 2017

Show all 26 references
  1. [7]

    Challenges and opportunities in edge computing

    Jie Cao, Quan Zhang, and Weisong Shi. Challenges and opportunities in edge computing. In Edge Computing: A Primer , pages 59–70. Springer, 2018

    2018

  2. [8]

    First hop mobile offloading of dag computations

    Vincenzo De Maio and Ivona Brandic. First hop mobile offloading of dag computations. In 2018 18th IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Cluster, Cloud and Grid Computing (CCGRID) , pages 83–92. IEEE, 2018

    2018

  3. [9]

    A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: Nsga-ii

    Kalyanmoy Deb, Amrit Pratap, Sameer Agarwal, and TAMT Meyarivan. A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: Nsga-ii. IEEE transactions on evolutionary computation , 6(2):182–197, 2002

    2002

  4. [10]

    jmetal: A java framework for multi- objective optimization

    Juan J Durillo and Antonio J Nebro. jmetal: A java framework for multi- objective optimization. Advances in Engineering Software , 42(10):760– 771, 2011

    2011

  5. [11]

    Proximity-aware traffic routing in distributed fog computing platforms

    Ali Fahs and Guillaume Pierre. Proximity-aware traffic routing in distributed fog computing platforms. In IEEE/ACM International Sym- posium in Cluster, Cloud, and Grid Computing (CCGrid) , 2019

    2019

  6. [12]

    An updated performance comparison of virtual machines and linux contain- ers

    Wes Felter, Alexandre Ferreira, Ram Rajamony, and Juan Rubio. An updated performance comparison of virtual machines and linux contain- ers. In 2015 IEEE international symposium on performance analysis of systems and software (ISPASS) , pages 171–172. IEEE, 2015

    2015

  7. [13]

    ifogsim: A toolkit for modeling and simulation of resource man- agement techniques in the internet of things, edge and fog computing environments

    Harshit Gupta, Amir Vahid Dastjerdi, Soumya K Ghosh, and Rajkumar Buyya. ifogsim: A toolkit for modeling and simulation of resource man- agement techniques in the internet of things, edge and fog computing environments. Software: Practice and Experience , 47(9):1275–1296, 2017

    2017

  8. [14]

    A review on modern distributed computing paradigms: Cloud computing, jungle computing and fog computing

    Majid Hajibaba and Saeid Gorgin. A review on modern distributed computing paradigms: Cloud computing, jungle computing and fog computing. Journal of computing and information technology, 22(2):69– 84, 2014

    2014

  9. [15]

    Towards container orchestration in fog com- puting infrastructures

    Saiful Hoque, Mathias Santos de Brito, Alexander Willner, Oliver Keil, and Thomas Magedanz. Towards container orchestration in fog com- puting infrastructures. In 2017 IEEE 41st Annual Computer Software and Applications Conference (COMPSAC) , volume 2, pages 294–299. IEEE, 2017

    2017

  10. [16]

    Adaptive nature-inspired fog architecture

    Dragi Kimovski, Humaira Ijaz, Nishant Saurabh, and Radu Prodan. Adaptive nature-inspired fog architecture. In Fog and Edge Computing (ICFEC), 2018 IEEE 2nd International Conference on, pages 1–8. IEEE, 2018

    2018

  11. [18]

    Latency-aware application module management for fog computing en- vironments

    Redowan Mahmud, Kotagiri Ramamohanarao, and Rajkumar Buyya. Latency-aware application module management for fog computing en- vironments. ACM Transactions on Internet Technology (TOIT) , 2018

    2018

  12. [19]

    Osmotic flow: Osmotic computing+ iot workflow

    Matteo Nardelli, Stefan Nastic, Schahram Dustdar, Massimo Villari, and Rajiv Ranjan. Osmotic flow: Osmotic computing+ iot workflow. IEEE Cloud Computing, 4(2):68–75, 2017. 200 500 1,000 2,0000 20 40 70 INSTR [MI] Completion time [s] 200 500 1,000 2,0000 500 1,000 1,500 INSTR [MI...

    2017

  13. [20]

    Cloud container technologies: a state-of-the-art review

    Claus Pahl, Antonio Brogi, Jacopo Soldani, and Pooyan Jamshidi. Cloud container technologies: a state-of-the-art review. IEEE Transactions on Cloud Computing, 2017

    2017

  14. [21]

    Towards task scheduling in a cloud-fog computing system

    Xuan-Qui Pham and Eui-Nam Huh. Towards task scheduling in a cloud-fog computing system. In Network Operations and Management Symposium (APNOMS), 2016 18th Asia-Pacific, pages 1–4. IEEE, 2016

    2016

  15. [22]

    Towards qos-aware fog service placement

    Olena Skarlat, Matteo Nardelli, Stefan Schulte, and Schahram Dustdar. Towards qos-aware fog service placement. In Fog and Edge Computing (ICFEC), 2017 IEEE 1st International Conference on , pages 89–96. IEEE, 2017

    2017

  16. [23]

    Software engineering 9th edition

    Ian Sommerville. Software engineering 9th edition. ISBN-10, 137035152, 2011

    2011

  17. [25]

    A faster algorithm for calculating hypervolume

    Lyndon While, Philip Hingston, Luigi Barone, and Simon Huband. A faster algorithm for calculating hypervolume. IEEE transactions on evolutionary computation, 10(1):29–38, 2006

    2006

  18. [26]

    Combining heuristics to optimize and scale the placement of iot applications in the fog

    Ye Xia, Xavier Etchevers, Loic Letondeur, Adrien Lebre, Thierry Coupaye, and Frédéric Desprez. Combining heuristics to optimize and scale the placement of iot applications in the fog. In 11th IEEE/ACM Conference on Utility and Cloud Computing, UCC 2018 , 2018

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.