Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 114 references

Warping the Edge: Where Instant Mobility in 5G Meets Stateful Applications

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Target-base-station prediction, two-step state sync, and control-plane prioritization keep stateful edge apps inside their delay budgets during 5G mobility.

desk verdict EdgeWarp is a serious systems paper whose headline 97% target-BS accuracy needs a re-run with an event-level data split and a fixed window size before the central claim is bankable. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.10927 v1 pith:ZL5DRBHV submitted 2024-12-14 cs.NI

Mukhtiar Ahmad , Faaiq Bilal , Mutahar Ali , Muhammad Ali Nawazish , Amir Salman , Shazer Ali , Fawad Ahmad , Zafar Ayyub Qazi This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.NI
keywords 5GedgecomputingstatefulapplicationmigrationtargetbasestationpredictionhandoverMECstatesynchronizationLSTMcontrolplaneprioritization
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

EdgeWarp is a system design for keeping stateful applications such as connected-vehicle perception, real-time 3D mapping, mobile VR, and edge gaming responsive while a user moves between 5G base stations. The paper argues that the reason such applications suffer hundreds of milliseconds or seconds of downtime during handovers is not any single slow step, but three architectural gaps: the network and application sessions migrate reactively and uncoordinately, generic state-migration tools are too slow for latency budgets, and the 5G control plane cannot tell latency-sensitive sessions from delay-tolerant ones. EdgeWarp closes all three gaps with a target-base-station predictor that issues a mobility hint about 100 ms before handover, a modified edge data store that synchronizes low-update-rate state in the background and the rest during handover, and new control-plane APIs that prioritize latency-sensitive UEs. On two real applications, CarMap and EMP, the paper reports 14x and 15.4x reductions in median application downtime, with blocking state-migration time falling below the applications' roughly 20 ms delay budgets in the default configuration. If correct, this makes stateful edge applications viable for users on the move without requiring developers to hand-optimize checkpointing for each app.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the mobility hint: an early, accurate prediction of the target base station produced by an eight-layer stacked LSTM over sliding windows of RSRP and RSRQ measurements, with zero-order extrapolation when samples are missing. That hint triggers the two-step state synchronization protocol: BackgroundSync migrates low-update-rate state objects to the predicted target data-store instance before handover, and BlockingSync transfers everything updated since then during the handover window; a per-key meta-state recording creation time, last update time, update count, and last sync time lets the store choose what to sync without developer annotation. The third component is an app-aware control plane that keeps separate priority queues at RAN and AMF for high-, medium-, and low-priority UEs, with server-side APIs to set and revert a session's priority. Together, the hint creates lead time, the data store converts lead time into pre-migrated state, and the priority queues shorten the handover itself.

What would settle it

Deploy EdgeWarp on a commercial or testbed 5G network and measure end-to-end the fraction of handovers for which the correct target base station is identified at least 100 ms before the handover decision, along with actual application downtime per handover; if the live correct-prediction rate falls well below the roughly 97% reported on offline traces, or if latency-sensitive apps still exceed their documented delay budgets under control-plane load, the central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that end-to-end application downtime during 5G mobility can be reduced to within the delay budgets of latency-sensitive stateful edge apps by treating a handover as a coordinated cross-layer event rather than a network-only event. Concretely, EdgeWarp claims that a stacked-LSTM predictor consuming RSRP and RSRQ radio measurements exposed through multi-access edge computing radio-network-information APIs identifies the correct target base station in about 97% of cases at least 100 ms before handover; that with this mobility hint, a two-step synchronization protocol in extended in-memory key-value stores, background sync of slow-changing state followed by blocking sync of the remainder at handover, cuts blocking state-migration time by more than 2.5x for both evaluated apps; and that an app-aware control plane, in which edge apps set per-UE priority at RAN and AMF through new APIs, keeps median handover completion near 4.5 ms under high control-plane load and eliminates missed deadlines that reach 42% in the baseline. The paper reports up to 14x and 15.4x median downtime reductions for CarMap and EMP, respectively, and shows through simulation that the benefit degrades gracefully as the fraction of high-update-rate state grows.

Load-bearing premise

The system depends on the offline-trained target-base-station predictor delivering its roughly 97% accuracy and 100 ms lead time in live 5G operation, including real-time radio-information API latency and inference delay; if live hints are late or wrong, proactive state synchronization degrades to the reactive baseline and the reported downtime reductions disappear.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If correct, connected-vehicle and mobile-VR applications can be handed between edge sites without user-visible interruption: CarMap's median downtime drops from about 82 ms to 6.8 ms and EMP's from 77 ms to near zero in the default configurations the paper tests.
  • Application developers no longer need app-specific checkpoint tuning; storing per-user state in the modified data store and calling the two new synchronization APIs is enough to capture most of the benefit.
  • The 5G control plane can prioritize latency-sensitive sessions using server-side APIs without UE changes, eliminating missed handover deadlines that reach 42% under high load in the baseline.
  • Mobility hints of 100 ms are sufficient for stateful apps with similar state sizes and update rates, while hints shorter than 10 ms provide negligible benefit, so the value of the design scales with prediction lead time.
  • EdgeWarp remains compatible with existing RAN and core deployments and can be layered on top of other edge resilience, placement, and load-balancing schemes.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper's tested apps, the mobility hint is a general trigger: the same 100 ms advance warning could be used by the network to pre-configure user-plane paths or by applications to pre-warm caches and prefetch sensor data, effects the paper does not measure.
  • The reported 97% accuracy is an offline number from recorded 4G/5G traces; a live deployment would need to confirm that real-time radio-information delivery and LSTM inference together still produce a usable hint, and online retraining may be required as radio environments change.
  • Because the benefit shrinks as the fraction of high-update-rate state grows, still only 1.7x at 100% dynamic state in the paper's simulation, the headline 14x and 15.4x gains are most representative of apps whose state has a substantial slow-changing component such as maps and perception models.
  • A testable extension suggested by the design is to feed the prediction back into the handover decision itself, enabling earlier conditional handovers; the paper keeps prediction and handover separate, but the 100 ms lead time is enough to act on.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper identifies three architectural bottlenecks for stateful edge applications during 5G mobility—reactive app session migration, slow generic migration techniques, and application-agnostic control plane processing—and proposes EdgeWarp, a cross-layer system combining an LSTM-based target base station predictor, a two-step state synchronization protocol in modified Redis/Memcached data stores, and priority processing in the 5G control plane. The evaluation with CarMap and EMP reports up to 14x and 15.4x reductions in application downtime, an average of 97% correct target BS predictions 100 ms before handover on three real trace datasets, and up to 103x improvement in handover completion time for latency-sensitive apps. The paper also contributes a simulation framework for stateful edge app behavior and provides anonymized open-source code.

Significance. If the central claims hold, EdgeWarp is a substantial systems contribution: it demonstrates a concrete way to combine proactive state migration with network-level handover information, and it evaluates the idea on real stateful applications (CarMap, EMP) and real radio traces. The paper's strengths include reproducible open-source artifacts, a realistic testbed with repeated experiments, a sensitivity analysis over application state properties, and a clear presentation of the architectural bottlenecks. The significance is conditional, however, on the reliability of the 97% target-BS accuracy claim, which underpins the downtime reductions in Tables 4 and 5; that claim currently suffers from a documented train/test split ambiguity, an internal window-size inconsistency, a numerical mismatch in the reported averages, and a missing false-alarm analysis.

major comments (5)
  1. [§C.1, §6.3] The split unit in §C.1 is not specified: the text says 10%/3%/87% of 'the above data' but does not state whether the split is at the level of handover events or individual sliding-window feature vectors (Figure 19). Since the LSTM is trained on sliding windows extracted from 23,630 handover events, a per-window split would place windows from the same handover in both training and test, allowing the model to memorize radio trajectories and inflating the reported accuracy toward the theoretical upper limit of about 99%. Please re-run the evaluation with an event-level split and report the resulting accuracy, or explicitly state that an event-level split was already used.
  2. [§4.3, §C.2] The feature-window configuration is inconsistent: §4.3 states that N is configurable with a default value of 6, while §C.2 and Figure 17 state that window size 5 performs best and that 'all our evaluations' use 5. This must be resolved: if the accuracy and downtime numbers in §6.3 and §6.4 used N=5, then the text in §4.3 is wrong; if any reported number used N=6, the model configuration is not fixed and the evaluation should be rerun with the stated default.
  3. [§6.3, Introduction] The headline 'average 97%' accuracy is not supported by the reported per-dataset numbers: Figure 9 reports 92.9%, 97.7%, and 92.4% for driving, high-speed trains, and miscellaneous traces. The simple average is 94.3% and the handover-count-weighted average is 96.3%, not 97%. Please specify exactly how the aggregate was computed and correct the numbers in the abstract, Introduction, and §6.3, or the central claim overstates the measured accuracy.
  4. [§6.3, §4.1] The prediction evaluation in §6.3 considers only windows that lead to handovers and reports true-prediction statistics; it does not include a false-alarm analysis for non-handover times. Because §4.1 promises 'minimal latency and bandwidth overheads in non-mobility scenarios' and an incorrect hint triggers unnecessary BackgroundSync and BlockingSync work, the paper should report the false-positive rate or precision-recall behavior of the LSTM pipeline over non-handover windows. Without this, the overhead claim in non-mobility scenarios is unsubstantiated.
  5. [§6.4, §6.3] The downtime improvements in Tables 4 and 5 are computed by simulating a 100 ms hint that is correct in 97% of handovers, rather than by running the target-BS predictor in real time on the testbed. This is a reasonable sensitivity analysis, but §6.4 should state this clearly and should also account for the RNI propagation latency and the LSTM inference time (measured separately in §B.1 as 8.7–9.5 ms) when claiming that apps receive the hint 100 ms before handover in practice.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Introduction] The text contains 'Figure §1c' and 'Figure §1b'; these should be plain figure references (Figure 1c, Figure 1b).
  2. [Introduction] The anonymous GitHub link contains 'Mobicom25', which is not anonymized and may disclose the target venue.
  3. [Table 1] The caption 'App HO Method' is awkward; consider 'Application handover method'.
  4. [§6.2] The notation '14x' should be '14×' for consistency with the abstract.
  5. [§C.1] The driving dataset is excluded from training to avoid overfitting; the same rationale should be applied to the other two datasets once the split unit is clarified, or the paper should explain why event-level leakage is not a concern for them.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the reported downtime, accuracy, and handover improvements are measured quantities obtained from testbed experiments and trace evaluations, not derived from fitted constants or self-citation chains.

full rationale

EdgeWarp's central claims are empirical rather than derivational. The 14x and 15.4x application-downtime reductions for CarMap and EMP are measured on a physical testbed using real modified applications (Tables 4 and 5, Figure 8), and the blocking state migration times are reported from direct instrumentation of the modified Redis data store. The 97% target-BS accuracy is reported from an evaluation of an LSTM classifier on three real radio trace datasets (Figure 9), with an explicitly stated upper bound computed as the fraction of handovers having at least one radio sample from the true target BS; the accuracy is therefore a measured quantity against an independent ceiling, not an identity. The handover-completion improvements are measured by comparing priority-queue processing in the modified control plane against a baseline control plane under controlled load (Figures 14 and 15, Table 6). The paper's self-citations are provenance and implementation baselines: the app-aware control plane is built by modifying the authors' prior Neutrino system [12, 80], and the baseline 'Existing 5G' is the authors' earlier Open-Air-Interface-based control plane [13]. These citations are not used to prove the paper's claims by appeal; the claims are backed by on-paper experiments, so the citations are not load-bearing in a circular sense. Hyperparameter choices, such as the learned threshold P=0.37 and window size 5, are tuned on the same trace families used for evaluation; this is a potential source of optimistic accuracy, and the paper's failure to state whether the 10/3/87 split is at handover-event level or sliding-window level is a legitimate data-leakage correctness concern. However, tuning and possible leakage do not make the reported accuracy true by construction: the reported numbers are still measurements of a trained model, not algebraic restatements of the training labels. Likewise, the two-step synchronization gain follows from the system design (proactively migrating low-update-rate state during the mobility hint and blocking only for the remainder), but the benefit is measured and quantified as migration time, not derived from the design's definitions. No equation in the paper reduces a predicted quantity to a fitted input, and no uniqueness or forced-choice argument is imported from the authors' prior work.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central results rest on a small number of tuned system parameters (LSTM threshold, feature window, top-x count, queue ratios) and on deployment assumptions stated in Section 4.1. The paper introduces no new physical entity; the mobility hint is an internal signal whose value depends entirely on the offline-validated predictor.

free parameters (4)
  • LSTM handover probability threshold P = 0.37
    Learned to maximize F1 of the binary handover classifier on trace data (Section 4.3). Reported prediction accuracy depends on this threshold.
  • Feature window length N = 5 in Appendix C.2; text in Section 4.3 says default 6
    Selected by comparing F1 scores across window sizes (Figure 17). The inconsistency between Section 4.3 and Appendix C.2 affects the model input configuration used in all evaluations.
  • Top-x candidate target BS count = 1 (default)
    Configurable in conflict resolution (Section 4.3). This default determines how many target edge hosts receive proactive state synchronization.
  • Priority queue service ratios = 6/10 HP, 3/10 MP, 1/10 LP
    Configurable processing weights at RAN and AMF queues (Section 4.5, footnote 11). Handover completion time results depend on these ratios.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Edge deployment of the cellular core is the target deployment model.
    Stated in Section 4.1 as the preferred deployment for latency-sensitive apps. If the core is centralized, the control plane latency profile changes.
  • domain assumption Stateful edge apps provide Read Your Writes consistency.
    Assumed in Section 4.1. Apps with stricter consistency requirements may need more blocking synchronization and could lose part of the benefit.
  • domain assumption The mobility handler receives target BS information from RNI-based prediction in real time.
    The proactive migration design in Sections 4.3 and 4.4 requires that live radio measurements are available through RNI APIs at the granularity used by the traces, which the paper does not validate on a real RAN.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Warping the Edge: Where Instant Mobility in 5G Meets Stateful Applications." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZL5DRBHV

@misc{pith2026241210927,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Warping the Edge: Where Instant Mobility in 5G Meets Stateful Applications},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZL5DRBHV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.10927}
}
read the original abstract

Edge computing is considered a key paradigm for supporting real-time applications over 5G networks, as hosting applications at the network edge can substantially reduce delays. A significant fraction of real-time applications over 5G are expected to be highly mobile applications. However, one challenge with hosting mobile applications on the network edge is ensuring that users continue to get low latency as they move across different locations. This requires the support to handover clients to different edge sites with negligible application delays. However, many edge applications are stateful and can experience significant downtime during state migration over 5G. This paper addresses the problem of enabling stateful mobile edge applications in 5G networks. We first identify the key architectural issues and then propose a new system design, EdgeWarp, that mitigates delays during mobility through proactive application state migration. To enable this, we extend the existing edge data stores with the design of a novel two-step application state synchronization protocol, that leverages the early prediction of the target edge host. Additionally, EdgeWarp prioritizes the handover of latency-sensitive edge applications by communicating their latency requirements to the 5G control plane at the beginning of a data session. Our evaluation with real edge applications shows up to a 15.4x reduction in application downtime under mobility. We have made our anonymized code publicly accessible here.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.10927 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Key challenges and potential solutions to minimize downtime during application handover caused by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Simplified 5G network architecture. (2) We design a new system architecture, EdgeWarp, compati￾ble with existing RAN and cellular core (e.g., 5G/4G/LTE). EdgeWarp consists of three new modules to speed up app handovers (§4). (3) We implement EdgeWarp. Our implementation consists of a target BS predictor, an extended edge data store on top of Redis and Memcached, and an app-aware 5G control plane (§5). (4) We evaluat… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. App downtime experienced by latency￾sensitive edge apps during mobility. Details §A [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (13 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: EdgeWarp’s system architecture. easily tuned for apps that can tolerate relaxed consistency models [100]. • We assume every edge site acts as an aggregation point for a set of BSs. Consequently, every 5G handover might not trigger an app state migration. 4.2 EdgeWarp’s…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: EdgeWarp’s target BS prediction. for its ability to handle complex, non-linear mobile network data, capturing both short-term fluctuations and long-term patterns in rapidly changing 5G radio signals. Our approach achieves 97% prediction accuracy (§6.3) without extensiv…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Testbed for experiments. (1) Improvement in Downtime for Real Edge Apps: EdgeWarp reduces app downtime during an app han￾dover by up to 14× and 15.4× for CarMap and EMP, re￾spectively. (2) Impact of Proactive App State Migration: EdgeWarp reduces blocking app state mig…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Overall improvement in app downtime during [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Accuracy of the early target BS prediction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Impact of early mobility hint on CarMap’s [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: EdgeWarp’s application downtime with vary￾ing dynamic state size. The dynamic state update rate = 50 updates/s. The Y-axis is on a log scale. advanced mobility hint is greater than 100 ms, CarMap with EdgeWarp provides a median blocking state migration time close to z…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Inference time of the target BS prediction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: A comparison of handover completion time for EdgeWarp and Existing 5G with uniform control traffic. Traffic split 60% EdgeWarp-LP, 28% EdgeWarp￾MP, and 12% for EdgeWarp-HP, as projected in [75]. • The maximum number of iterations or pre-dumps be￾ing set to 20 with com…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: A comparison of EdgeWarp’s handover com￾pletion time and Existing 5G with bursty control traffic. Traffic split 60% EdgeWarp-LP, 28% EdgeWarp-MP, and 12% for EdgeWarp-HP, as projected in [75] [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_15.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Feature vector windows size vs. F1 score. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: A summary of the neural network for target [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_18.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: A snapshot of the sliding windows (size 5) feature vector for source and one of the potential target BSs. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_19.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

114 extracted references · 80 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    ETSI TS 124 008 V15.9.0 (2020-10)

    3GPP. "ETSI TS 124 008 V15.9.0 (2020-10)". https: //www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_ts/124000_124099/124008/15.09.00_60/ ts_124008v150900p.pdf. [Online; accessed 19-May-2022]

    2020

  2. [2]

    Procedures for the 5G System (5GS); Stage 2 (Release 16)

    3GPP. Procedures for the 5G System (5GS); Stage 2 (Release 16). https: //www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/archive/23_series/23.502/, 2018. [Online; accessed 18-May-2022]

    2018

  3. [3]

    ETSI TS 123 502 V15.5.1 (2019-05)

    3GPP. ETSI TS 123 502 V15.5.1 (2019-05). https: //www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_ts/123500_123599/123502/15.05.01_60/ ts_123502v150501p.pdf, 2023. [Online; accessed 21-June-2023]

    2019

  4. [4]

    Non-Access-Stratum (NAS) protocol Stage 3

    3GPP Ref #: 124.301. Non-Access-Stratum (NAS) protocol Stage 3. www.3gpp.org/dynareport/24301.htm, 2023

    2023

  5. [5]

    General Packet Radio Service (GPRS) enhancements for Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access Network (E-UTRAN) access, 2016

    3GPP Ref #: 23.401. General Packet Radio Service (GPRS) enhancements for Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access Network (E-UTRAN) access, 2016

    2016

  6. [6]

    System architecture for the 5G Sys- tem (5GS)

    3GPP Ref #: 23.501. System architecture for the 5G Sys- tem (5GS). https://portal .3gpp.org/desktopmodules/Specifications/ SpecificationDetails.aspx?specificationId=3144, 2023

    2023

  7. [7]

    Mobility Management Entity (MME) and Serv- ing GPRS Support Node (SGSN) related interfaces based on Diameter protocol, 2016

    3GPP Ref #: 29.272. Mobility Management Entity (MME) and Serv- ing GPRS Support Node (SGSN) related interfaces based on Diameter protocol, 2016

    2016

  8. [8]

    Handover Prediction Integrated with Service Migration in 5G Systems

    Abdah, Hadeel and Barraca, João Paulo and Aguiar, Rui L. Handover Prediction Integrated with Service Migration in 5G Systems. In ICC 2020 - 2020 IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC) , pages 1–7, 2020

    2020

Show all 114 references
  1. [9]

    A deep reinforcement learning approach for service migration in mec-enabled vehicular networks

    Abouaomar, Amine and Mlika, Zoubeir and Filali, Abderrahime and Cherkaoui, Soumaya and Kobbane, Abdellatif. A deep reinforcement learning approach for service migration in mec-enabled vehicular networks. In 2021 IEEE 46th conference on local computer networks (LCN), pages 273–...

    2021

  2. [10]

    Fast Service Migration in 5G Trends and Scenarios

    Addad, Rami Akrem and Dutra, Diego Leonel Cadette and Bagaa, Miloud and Taleb, Tarik and Flinck, Hannu. Fast Service Migration in 5G Trends and Scenarios. IEEE Network, 34(2):92–98, 2020

    2020

  3. [11]

    CarMap: Fast 3D Feature Map Updates for Automobiles

    Fawad Ahmad, Hang Qiu, Ray Eells, Fan Bai, and Ramesh Govindan. CarMap: Fast 3D Feature Map Updates for Automobiles. In 17th USENIX Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation (NSDI 20), pages 1063–1081, 2020

    2020

  4. [12]

    Neutrino: A fast and consistent edge- based cellular control plane

    Mukhtiar Ahmad, Syed Muhammad Nawazish Ali, Muham- mad Taimoor Tariq, Syed Usman Jafri, Adnan Abbas, Syeda Mashal Abbas Zaidi, Muhammad Basit Iqbal Awan, Zartash Afzal Uzmi, and Zafar Ayyub Qazi. Neutrino: A fast and consistent edge- based cellular control plane. IEEE/ACM Tran...

    2022

  5. [13]

    A low latency and consistent cellular control plane

    Mukhtiar Ahmad, Syed Usman Jafri, Azam Ikram, Wasiq Noor Ah- mad Qasmi, Muhammad Ali Nawazish, Zartash Afzal Uzmi, and Zafar Ayyub Qazi. A low latency and consistent cellular control plane. In Proceedings of the Annual conference of the ACM Special Interest Group on Data Commu...

    2020

  6. [14]

    Enabling emerging edge applications through a 5g control plane intervention

    Mukhtiar Ahmad, Muhammad Ali Nawazish, Muhammad Taimoor Tariq, Muhammad Basit Iqbal Awan, Muhammad Taqi Raza, and Zafar Ayyub Qazi. Enabling emerging edge applications through a 5g control plane intervention. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on emerging Netw...

    2022

  7. [15]

    iDriving: Toward Safe and Efficient Infrastructure-directed Autonomous Driving.arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.08930, 2022

    Ahmad, Fawad and Shin, Christina and Pang, Weiwu and Cashman, Jacob and Leong, Branden and Govindan, Ramesh. iDriving: Toward Safe and Efficient Infrastructure-directed Autonomous Driving.arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.08930, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Millimeter wave channel modeling and cellular capac- ity evaluation

    Akdeniz, Mustafa Riza and Liu, Yuanpeng and Samimi, Mathew K and Sun, Shu and Rangan, Sundeep and Rappaport, Theodore S and Erkip, Elza. Millimeter wave channel modeling and cellular capac- ity evaluation. IEEE journal on selected areas in communications , 32(6):1164–1179, 2014

    2014

  9. [17]

    EDGE DATA CENTERS

    American Tower. EDGE DATA CENTERS. https: //www.americantower.com/us/solutions/data-centers/edge/. [Online; accessed 04-Dec-2023]

    2023

  10. [18]

    Real-time video analytics: The killer app for edge computing

    Ganesh Ananthanarayanan, Paramvir Bahl, Peter Bodík, Krishna Chintalapudi, Matthai Philipose, Lenin Ravindranath, and Sudipta Sinha. Real-time video analytics: The killer app for edge computing. Computer, 50(10):58–67, 2017

    2017

  11. [19]

    Deutsche Telekom, Ericsson and Samsung demonstrate 5G E2E Network Slicing on a commercial 5G de- vice

    Anne Geelen. Deutsche Telekom, Ericsson and Samsung demonstrate 5G E2E Network Slicing on a commercial 5G de- vice. https://www .telekom.com/en/media/media-information/ archive/5g-e2e-network-slicing-630550?sharingservice = linkedin_share%22%20\T1\l%20%22.YNmTtaWT4A8.linkedin....

    2022

  12. [20]

    5G and Edge Computing Enhances Connected and Autonomous Experiences

    AWS. 5G and Edge Computing Enhances Connected and Autonomous Experiences . https://d1 .awsstatic.com/autonomous-connected.pdf. [Online; accessed 13-June-2022]

    2022

  13. [21]

    Cloud Gamingat the Edge

    AWS. Cloud Gamingat the Edge. https://d1 .awsstatic.com/product- marketing/Outposts/AWS%20Gaming%20Infographic.pdf. [Online; accessed 17-June-2022]

    2022

  14. [22]

    Efficiency of Handover Prediction Based on Handover History

    Zdenek Becvar. Efficiency of Handover Prediction Based on Handover History. J. Convergence Inf. Technol., 4(4):41–47, 2009

    2009

  15. [23]

    Edge-slam: Edge- assisted visual simultaneous localization and mapping

    Ali J Ben Ali, Marziye Kouroshli, Sofiya Semenova, Zakieh Sadat Hashemifar, Steven Y Ko, and Karthik Dantu. Edge-slam: Edge- assisted visual simultaneous localization and mapping. ACM Trans- actions on Embedded Computing Systems , 22(1):1–31, 2022

    2022

  16. [24]

    Autonomous vehicles enabled by the integration of iot, edge intelligence, 5g, and blockchain

    Anushka Biswas and Hwang-Cheng Wang. Autonomous vehicles enabled by the integration of iot, edge intelligence, 5g, and blockchain. Sensors, 23(4):1963, 2023

    1963

  17. [25]

    Mobile Edge Computing Resources Optimization: A Geo-Clustering Approach

    Mathieu Bouet and Vania Conan. Mobile Edge Computing Resources Optimization: A Geo-Clustering Approach. IEEE Transactions on Network and Service Management , 15(2):787–796, 2018

    2018

  18. [26]

    Fast checkpoint recovery algorithms for frequently consistent applications

    Tuan Cao, Marcos Vaz Salles, Benjamin Sowell, Yao Yue, Alan De- mers, Johannes Gehrke, and Walker White. Fast checkpoint recovery algorithms for frequently consistent applications. In Proceedings of the 2011 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of data, pages 265–...

    2011

  19. [27]

    Rperf Dataset Release (ICNP’21)

    cathyli93. Rperf Dataset Release (ICNP’21). https://github .com/ cathyli93/icnp21-reconfig-dataset. [Online; accessed 14-Jan-2023]

    2023

  20. [28]

    Applied network slicing scenarios in 5G

    Angelo Centonza and Henrik Basilier. Applied network slicing scenarios in 5G . https://www .ericsson.com/en/reports-and- papers/ericsson-technology-review/articles/applied-network- slicing-scenarios-in-5g. [Online; accessed 13-May-2022]. 13

    2022

  21. [29]

    Predicting a user’s next cell with supervised learning based on channel states

    Chen, Xu and Mériaux, François and Valentin, Stefan. Predicting a user’s next cell with supervised learning based on channel states. In 2013 IEEE 14th workshop on signal processing advances in wireless communications (SPA WC), pages 36–40. IEEE, 2013

    2013

  22. [30]

    5G and Massive IoT: legacy technologies will bridge the gap for now

    Christian Kim. 5G and Massive IoT: legacy technologies will bridge the gap for now. https://omdia.tech.informa.com/OM004695/5G-and- Massive-IoT-legacy-technologies-will-bridge-the-gap-for-now. [On- line; accessed 15-Feb-2023]

    2023

  23. [31]

    Live Migration of Virtual Machines

    Christopher Clark and Keir Fraser and Steven Hand and Jacob Gorm Hansen and Eric Jul and Christian Limpach and Ian Pratt and Andrew Warfield. Live Migration of Virtual Machines. In 2nd Symposium on Networked Systems Design & Implementation (NSDI 05) , Boston, MA, May 2005. USE...

    2005

  24. [32]

    A project to implement checkpoint/restore functionality for Linux

    CRIU. A project to implement checkpoint/restore functionality for Linux. https://github.com/checkpoint-restore/criu. [Online; accessed 17-May-2022]

    2022

  25. [33]

    Why Google Cloud and AT&T May Merge their Telco Edges, 2021

    Data Center Knowledge. Why Google Cloud and AT&T May Merge their Telco Edges, 2021

    2021

  26. [34]

    Slam-share: visual simultaneous localization and mapping for real-time multi-user augmented reality

    Aditya Dhakal, Xukan Ran, Yunshu Wang, Jiasi Chen, and KK Ramakr- ishnan. Slam-share: visual simultaneous localization and mapping for real-time multi-user augmented reality. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on emerging Networking EXperiments and Technologie...

    2022

  27. [35]

    Toward low-latency and ultra-reliable virtual reality

    Elbamby, Mohammed S and Perfecto, Cristina and Bennis, Mehdi and Doppler, Klaus. Toward low-latency and ultra-reliable virtual reality. IEEE Network, 32(2):78–84, 2018

    2018

  28. [36]

    Cellular IoT Evolution for Industry Digitization

    Ericsson. Cellular IoT Evolution for Industry Digitization. https://www.ericsson.com/en/reports-and-papers/white- papers/cellular-iot-evolution-for-industry-digitalization. [Online; accessed 17-June-2022]

    2022

  29. [37]

    Cellular IoT in the 5G era

    Ericsson. Cellular IoT in the 5G era. https://www .ericsson.com/en/ reports-and-papers/white-papers/cellular-iot-in-the-5g-era. [On- line; accessed 17-June-2022]

    2022

  30. [38]

    The essential building blocks of E2E network slicing

    ERICSSON. The essential building blocks of E2E network slicing. https://foryou .ericsson.com/eso-network-slicing-e2e- paper.html. [Online; accessed 17-May-2022]

    2022

  31. [39]

    Cellular iot evolution for industry digitalization, 2020

    Ericsson. Cellular iot evolution for industry digitalization, 2020

    2020

  32. [40]

    5G URLLC - Achieving industrial automa- tion

    Ericsson and Audi. 5G URLLC - Achieving industrial automa- tion. https://www .ericsson.com/en/cases/2020/accelerate-factory- automation-with-5g-urllc

    2020

  33. [41]

    MEC Deployments in 4G and Evolution Towards 5G

    ETSI. MEC Deployments in 4G and Evolution Towards 5G. https://www .etsi.org/images/files/etsiwhitepapers/ etsi_wp24_mec_deployment_in_4g_5g_final.pdf. [Online; ac- cessed 14-Jan-2023]

    2023

  34. [42]

    Mobile Edge Computing (MEC); Radio Network Informa- tion API

    ETSI. Mobile Edge Computing (MEC); Radio Network Informa- tion API. https://www .etsi.org/deliver/etsi_gs/MEC/001_099/012/ 02.02.01_60/gs_MEC012v020201p.pdf. [Online; accessed 10-Jan- 2023]

    2023

  35. [43]

    Multi-access Edge Computing (MEC);Application Mobility Service API

    ETSI. Multi-access Edge Computing (MEC);Application Mobility Service API. https://www .etsi.org/deliver/etsi_gs/MEC/001_099/ 021/02.01.01_60/gs_mec021v020101p.pdf. [Online; accessed 06-June- 2022]

    2022

  36. [44]

    GS MEC 002: Multi-access Edge Computing (MEC); Phase 2: Use Cases and Requirements

    ETSI. GS MEC 002: Multi-access Edge Computing (MEC); Phase 2: Use Cases and Requirements. https://www .etsi.org/deliver/etsi_gs/ mec/001_099/002/02.01.01_60/gs_mec002v020101p.pdf, 2018

    2018

  37. [45]

    GS MEC 003: Multi-access Edge Computing (MEC); Framework and Reference Architecture

    ETSI. GS MEC 003: Multi-access Edge Computing (MEC); Framework and Reference Architecture. https://www .etsi.org/deliver/etsi_gs/ MEC/001_099/003/02.02.01_60/gs_MEC003v020201p.pdf, 2018

    2018

  38. [46]

    MEC in 5G networks

    ETSI. MEC in 5G networks. https://www .etsi.org/images/files/ ETSIWhitePapers/etsi_wp28_mec_in_5G_FINAL.pdf, 2018

    2018

  39. [47]

    Fawad Ahmad. CarMap. https://github .com/USC-NSL/CarMap. [On- line; accessed 09-Nov-2022]

    2022

  40. [48]

    Container live mi- gration for latency critical industrial applications on edge computing

    Keerthana Govindaraj and Alexander Artemenko. Container live mi- gration for latency critical industrial applications on edge computing. In 2018 IEEE 23rd International Conference on Emerging Technologies and Factory Automation (ETFA), volume 1, pages 83–90. IEEE, 2018

    2018

  41. [49]

    CESSNA: Resilient edge-computing

    Yotam Harchol, Aisha Mushtaq, James McCauley, Aurojit Panda, and Scott Shenker. CESSNA: Resilient edge-computing. In Proceedings of the 2018 Workshop on Mobile Edge Communications , pages 1–6, 2018

    2018

  42. [50]

    Vivisecting mobility management in 5g cellular networks

    Ahmad Hassan, Arvind Narayanan, Anlan Zhang, Wei Ye, Ruiyang Zhu, Shuowei Jin, Jason Carpenter, Z Morley Mao, Feng Qian, and Zhi- Li Zhang. Vivisecting mobility management in 5g cellular networks. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM 2022 Conference , pages 86–100, 2022

    2022

  43. [51]

    VI-eye: semantic-based 3D point cloud registration for infrastructure-assisted autonomous driving

    He, Yuze and Ma, Li and Jiang, Zhehao and Tang, Yi and Xing, Guoliang. VI-eye: semantic-based 3D point cloud registration for infrastructure-assisted autonomous driving. In Proceedings of the 27th Annual International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking, pages 573–586, 2021

    2021

  44. [52]

    Stateful process migration for edge computing applications

    Motoshi Horii, Yuji Kojima, and Kenichi Fukuda. Stateful process migration for edge computing applications. In 2018 IEEE Wireless Communications and Networking Conference (WCNC), pages 1–6. IEEE, 2018

    2018

  45. [53]

    Cloud VR Network; Solution White Paper

    Huawei Lab. Cloud VR Network; Solution White Paper. https://www .huawei.com/minisite/pdf/ilab/ cloud_vr_network_solution_white_paper_en.pdf. [Online; accessed 17-June-2022]

    2022

  46. [54]

    ZooKeeper: Wait-free Coordination for Internet- scale Systems

    Hunt, Patrick and Konar, Mahadev and Junqueira, Flavio Paiva and Reed, Benjamin. ZooKeeper: Wait-free Coordination for Internet- scale Systems. In USENIX annual technical conference , 2010

    2010

  47. [55]

    L25gc: a low latency 5g core network based on high-performance nfv platforms

    Vivek Jain, Hao-Tse Chu, Shixiong Qi, Chia-An Lee, Hung-Cheng Chang, Cheng-Ying Hsieh, KK Ramakrishnan, and Jyh-Cheng Chen. L25gc: a low latency 5g core network based on high-performance nfv platforms. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM 2022 Conference , pages 143–157, 2022

    2022

  48. [56]

    April-Tag-VR-FullBody-Tracker

    Ju1ce. April-Tag-VR-FullBody-Tracker. https://github .com/ju1ce/ April-Tag-VR-FullBody-Tracker. [Online; accessed 17-June-2022]

    2022

  49. [57]

    juju. LXD. https://github .com/juju/lxc. [Online; accessed 14-Jan- 2023]

    2023

  50. [58]

    Keras. LXD. https://keras .io/. [Online; accessed 14-Feb-2023]

    2023

  51. [59]

    A study on sensor system latency in vr motion sickness

    Kundu, Ripan Kumar and Rahman, Akhlaqur and Paul, Shuva. A study on sensor system latency in vr motion sickness. Journal of Sensor and Actuator Networks , 10(3):53, 2021

    2021

  52. [60]

    CoreKube: An Efficient, Autoscaling and Resilient Mobile Core Sys- tem

    Larrea, Jon and Ferguson, Andrew E and Marina, Mahesh K. CoreKube: An Efficient, Autoscaling and Resilient Mobile Core Sys- tem. In Proceedings of the 29th Annual International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking , pages 1–15, 2023

    2023

  53. [61]

    Prediction-based conditional handover for 5G mm-Wave networks: A deep-learning approach

    Lee, Changsung and Cho, Hyoungjun and Song, Sooeun and Chung, Jong-Moon. Prediction-based conditional handover for 5G mm-Wave networks: A deep-learning approach. IEEE Vehicular Technology Magazine, 15(1):54–62, 2020

    2020

  54. [62]

    Lettuce - Advanced Java Redis client

    lettuce.io. Lettuce - Advanced Java Redis client. https://github .com/ redis/redis. [Online; accessed 26-Aug-2024]

    2024

  55. [63]

    Lettuce - Advanced Java Redis client

    lettuce.io. Lettuce - Advanced Java Redis client. https://github .com/ cpp-redis/cpp_redis. [Online; accessed 09-Nov-2022]

    2022

  56. [64]

    Reconfiguring cell selection in 4g/5g networks

    Qianru Li and Chunyi Peng. Reconfiguring cell selection in 4g/5g networks. In 2021 IEEE 29th International Conference on Network Protocols (ICNP), pages 1–11. IEEE, 2021

    2021

  57. [65]

    Beyond 5g: Reliable extreme mobility management

    Yuanjie Li, Qianru Li, Zhehui Zhang, Ghufran Baig, Lili Qiu, and Songwu Lu. Beyond 5g: Reliable extreme mobility management. In Proceedings of the Annual conference of the ACM Special Interest Group on Data Communication on the applications, technologies, architectures, and pr...

    2020

  58. [66]

    5G New Radio for Public Safety Mission Critical Communications

    Li, Jingya and Nagalapur, Keerthi Kumar and Stare, Erik and Dwivedi, Satyam and Ashraf, Shehzad Ali and Eriksson, Per-Erik and Engström, Ulrika and Lee, Woonghee and Lohmar, Thorsten. 5G New Radio for Public Safety Mission Critical Communications. arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.02434, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  59. [67]

    A control-plane perspective on reducing data access latency in lte networks

    Li, Yuanjie and Yuan, Zengwen and Peng, Chunyi. A control-plane perspective on reducing data access latency in lte networks. In Proceedings of the 23rd Annual International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking, pages 56–69, 2017

    2017

  60. [68]

    LTE-M and NB-IoT meet the 5G performance require- ments

    Olof Liberg. LTE-M and NB-IoT meet the 5G performance require- ments. https://www .ericsson.com/en/blog/2018/12/lte-m-and-nb- iot-meet-the-5g-performance-requirements. [Online; accessed 08- May-2022]

    2018

  61. [69]

    EDGE COMPUTE FOR GAMING

    Limelight. EDGE COMPUTE FOR GAMING. https: //www.limelight.com/resources/data-sheet/edge-compute-for- gaming/. [Online; accessed 17-June-2022]

    2022

  62. [70]

    The architectural implications of autonomous driving: Constraints and ac- celeration

    Lin, Shih-Chieh and Zhang, Yunqi and Hsu, Chang-Hong and Skach, Matt and Haque, Md E and Tang, Lingjia and Mars, Jason. The architectural implications of autonomous driving: Constraints and ac- celeration. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Third International Conference on Architec...

    2018

  63. [71]

    Driving forces for multi-access edge computing (mec) iot integration in 5g

    Madhusanka Liyanage, Pawani Porambage, Aaron Yi Ding, and An- shuman Kalla. Driving forces for multi-access edge computing (mec) iot integration in 5g. ICT Express, 7(2):127–137, 2021

    2021

  64. [72]

    Fast service migration method based on virtual machine technology for mec

    Wei Lu, Xianyu Meng, and Guanfei Guo. Fast service migration method based on virtual machine technology for mec. IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 6(3):4344–4354, 2018

    2018

  65. [73]

    Efficient service handoff across edge servers via docker container migration

    Lele Ma, Shanhe Yi, and Qun Li. Efficient service handoff across edge servers via docker container migration. In Proceedings of the Second ACM/IEEE Symposium on Edge Computing , pages 1–13, 2017

    2017

  66. [74]

    and Ko, Bong Jun and Salonidis, Theodoros

    Machen, Andrew and Wang, Shiqiang and Leung, Kin K. and Ko, Bong Jun and Salonidis, Theodoros. Live Service Migration in Mobile Edge Clouds. IEEE Wireless Communications, 25(1):140–147, 2018

    2018

  67. [75]

    The 5G era

    McKinsey & Compnay. The 5G era. https://www .mckinsey.com/ ~/media/mckinsey/industries/advanced%20electronics/our% 20insights/the%205g%20era%20new%20horizons%20for% 20advanced%20electronics%20and%20industrial%20companies/the- 5g-era-new-horizons-for-advanced-electronics-and-in...

    2022

  68. [76]

    MEC - Multi-access Edge Computing

    MEC. MEC - Multi-access Edge Computing. https://forge .etsi.org/ rep/mec. [Online; accessed 18-June-2022]

    2022

  69. [77]

    Memcached

    Memcached. Memcached. https://memcached.org/. [Online; accessed 07-May-2022]

    2022

  70. [78]

    About Edge Zone Preview

    Microsoft. About Edge Zone Preview. https://docs.microsoft.com/en- us/azure/networking/edge-zones-overview. [Online; accessed 18- June-2022]

    2022

  71. [79]

    MobileInsight

    MobileInsight. MobileInsight. http://www .mobileinsight.net/ index.html. [Online; accessed 18-June-2022]

    2022

  72. [80]

    Neutrino

    Mukhtiar et al. Neutrino. https://github .com/nsgLUMS/neutrino. [Online; accessed 09-Nov-2022]

    2022

  73. [81]

    Vasudevan Nagendra, Arani Bhattacharya, Anshul Gandhi, and Samir R. Das. Mmlite: A scalable and resource efficient control plane for next generation cellular packet core. In Proceedings of the 2019 ACM Symposium on SDN Research , SOSR ’19, 2019

    2019

  74. [82]

    A first look at commercial 5G performance on smartphones

    Narayanan, Arvind and Ramadan, Eman and Carpenter, Jason and Liu, Qingxu and Liu, Yu and Qian, Feng and Zhang, Zhi-Li. A first look at commercial 5G performance on smartphones. In Proceedings of The Web Conference 2020, pages 894–905, 2020

    2020

  75. [83]

    Coordinated container migration and base station handover in mobile edge computing

    Ngo, Mao V and Luo, Tie and Hoang, Hieu T and Ouek, Tony QS. Coordinated container migration and base station handover in mobile edge computing. In GLOBECOM 2020-2020 IEEE Global Communica- tions Conference, pages 1–6. IEEE, 2020

    2020

  76. [84]

    Portkey: Adaptive key-value placement over dynamic edge networks

    Joseph Noor, Mani Srivastava, and Ravi Netravali. Portkey: Adaptive key-value placement over dynamic edge networks. In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Cloud Computing , pages 197–213, 2021

    2021

  77. [85]

    Virtual Reality/Augmented Reality White Paper , 2018

    China Academy of Information and Communications Technology. Virtual Reality/Augmented Reality White Paper , 2018

    2018

  78. [86]

    A novel deep learning driven, low-cost mobility prediction approach for 5G cellular networks: The case of the Control/Data Separation Architec- ture (CDSA)

    Ozturk, Metin and Gogate, Mandar and Onireti, Oluwakayode and Adeel, Ahsan and Hussain, Amir and Imran, Muhammad A. A novel deep learning driven, low-cost mobility prediction approach for 5G cellular networks: The case of the Control/Data Separation Architec- ture (CDSA). Neur...

    2019

  79. [87]

    The open source, in-memory data store used by millions of developers as a database, cache, streaming engine, and message broker

    Redis. The open source, in-memory data store used by millions of developers as a database, cache, streaming engine, and message broker. https://redis .io/. [Online; accessed 07-May-2022]

    2022

  80. [88]

    Redis Python Client

    Redis Inc. Redis Python Client. https://github .com/redis/redis-py. [Online; accessed 09-Nov-2022]

    2022

  81. [89]

    Millimeter-wave beamforming as an enabling technology for 5G cellular communications: theoretical feasibility and prototype results

    Roh, Wonil and Seol, Ji-Yun and Park, Jeongho and Lee, Byunghwan and Lee, Jaekon and Kim, Yungsoo and Cho, Jaeweon and Cheun, Kyungwhoon and Aryanfar, Farshid. Millimeter-wave beamforming as an enabling technology for 5G cellular communications: theoretical feasibility and pro...

    2014

  82. [90]

    The emergence of edge computing

    Satyanarayanan and Mahadev. The emergence of edge computing. Computer, 50(1):30–39, 2017

    2017

  83. [91]

    How to Reduce Latency or Lag in Gam- ing

    ScreenBeam. How to Reduce Latency or Lag in Gam- ing. https://www .screenbeam.com/wifihelp/wifibooster/how-to- reduce-latency-or-lag-in-gaming-2/. [Online; accessed 18-June- 2022]

    2022

  84. [92]

    Amazon wavelength, 2021

    SDxCentral. Amazon wavelength, 2021

    2021

  85. [93]

    PDU Session Establishment in a Nutshell

    ShareTechNote. PDU Session Establishment in a Nutshell. https://www .sharetechnote.com/html/5G/ 5G_PDUSessionEstablishment.html, 2023

    2023

  86. [94]

    Shawnxm. EMP. https://github .com/Shawnxm/EMP. [Online; ac- cessed 09-Nov-2022]

    2022

  87. [95]

    Mobile VR on edge cloud: a latency-driven design

    Shi, Shu and Gupta, Varun and Hwang, Michael and Jana, Rittwik. Mobile VR on edge cloud: a latency-driven design. In Proceedings of the 10th ACM multimedia systems conference , pages 222–231, 2019

    2019

  88. [96]

    C++11 Lightweight Redis client

    Simon Ninon. C++11 Lightweight Redis client. https://github .com/ cpp-redis/cpp_redis. [Online; accessed 09-Nov-2022]

    2022

  89. [97]

    Study on Scenarios and Requirements for Next Generation Access Technologies; (Release 17)

    Specification #: 38.913. Study on Scenarios and Requirements for Next Generation Access Technologies; (Release 17)

  90. [98]

    Supporting mobile VR in LTE networks: How close are we? Proceedings of the ACM on Measurement and Analysis of Computing Systems, 2(1):1–31, 2018

    Tan, Zhaowei and Li, Yuanjie and Li, Qianru and Zhang, Zhehui and Li, Zhehan and Lu, Songwu. Supporting mobile VR in LTE networks: How close are we? Proceedings of the ACM on Measurement and Analysis of Computing Systems, 2(1):1–31, 2018

    2018

  91. [99]

    Sharing and caring of data at the edge

    Animesh Trivedi, Lin Wang, Henri Bal, and Alexandru Iosup. Sharing and caring of data at the edge. In 3rd{USENIX} Workshop on Hot Topics in Edge Computing (HotEdge 20) , 2020

    2020

  92. [100]

    Tanenbaum

    Maarten van Steen and Andrew S. Tanenbaum. Distributed Systems: Principles and Paradigms (3rd edition) . Maarten van Steen, 2017

    2017

  93. [101]

    Networking and communica- tions in autonomous driving: A survey.IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, 21(2):1243–1274, 2018

    Jiadai Wang, Jiajia Liu, and Nei Kato. Networking and communica- tions in autonomous driving: A survey.IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, 21(2):1243–1274, 2018

    2018

  94. [102]

    Behavioral simulations in mapreduce

    Wang, Guozhang and Salles, Marcos Vaz and Sowell, Benjamin and Wang, Xun and Cao, Tuan and Demers, Alan and Gehrke, Johannes and White, Walker. Behavioral simulations in mapreduce. arXiv preprint arXiv:1005.3773, 2010

    2010 arXiv

  95. [103]

    Scaling games to epic propor- tions

    White, Walker and Demers, Alan and Koch, Christoph and Gehrke, Johannes and Rajagopalan, Rajmohan. Scaling games to epic propor- tions. In Proceedings of the 2007 ACM SIGMOD international conference on Management of data , pages 31–42, 2007. 15

    2007

  96. [104]

    Online Geographical Load Balancing for Energy-Harvesting Mobile Edge Computing

    Hang Wu, Lixing Chen, Cong Shen, Wujie Wen, and Jie Xu. Online Geographical Load Balancing for Energy-Harvesting Mobile Edge Computing. In 2018 IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC), pages 1–6, 2018

    2018

  97. [105]

    {SwarmMap}: Scaling up real-time collaborative visual{SLAM} at the edge

    Jingao Xu, Hao Cao, Zheng Yang, Longfei Shangguan, Jialin Zhang, Xiaowu He, and Yunhao Liu. {SwarmMap}: Scaling up real-time collaborative visual{SLAM} at the edge. In 19th USENIX Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation (NSDI 22) , pages 977–993, 2022

    2022

  98. [106]

    Understanding operational 5G: A first measurement study on its coverage, performance and energy consumption

    Xu, Dongzhu and Zhou, Anfu and Zhang, Xinyu and Wang, Guixian and Liu, Xi and An, Congkai and Shi, Yiming and Liu, Liang and Ma, Huadong. Understanding operational 5G: A first measurement study on its coverage, performance and energy consumption. InProceedings of the Annual co...

    2020

  99. [107]

    In 19th USENIX Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implemen- tation (NSDI 22), pages 977–993, 2022

    Xu, Jingao and Cao, Hao and Yang, Zheng and Shangguan, Longfei and Zhang, Jialin and He, Xiaowu and Liu, Yunhao.{SwarmMap}: Scaling Up Real-time Collaborative Visual{SLAM} at the Edge. In 19th USENIX Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implemen- tation (NSDI 22), pages 9...

    2022

  100. [108]

    Multitier Service Mi- gration Framework Based on Mobility Prediction in Mobile Edge Computing

    Yang, Run and He, Hui and Zhang, Weizhe. Multitier Service Mi- gration Framework Based on Mobility Prediction in Mobile Edge Computing. Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing , 2021, 2021

    2021

  101. [109]

    REM-SIGCOMM20

    Yuanjie Li, Qianru Li, Zhehui Zhang, Ghufran Baig, Lili Qiu, Songwu Lu. REM-SIGCOMM20. https://www .dropbox.com/sh/ g18byqo8idjkn3k/AABWSzJP_ayBMZAQSk0WdJdBa?dl=0. [Online; accessed 14-Jan-2023]

    2023

  102. [110]

    {EdgeBalance}:{Model-Based} Load Balancing for Network Edge Data Planes

    Zhang, Wei and Sharma, Abhigyan and Wood, Timothy. {EdgeBalance}:{Model-Based} Load Balancing for Network Edge Data Planes. In 3rd USENIX Workshop on Hot Topics in Edge Computing (HotEdge 20), 2020

    2020

  103. [111]

    Towards efficient edge cloud augmentation for virtual reality MMOGs

    Zhang, Wuyang and Chen, Jiachen and Zhang, Yanyong and Ray- chaudhuri, Dipankar. Towards efficient edge cloud augmentation for virtual reality MMOGs. In Proceedings of the Second ACM/IEEE Symposium on Edge Computing , pages 1–14, 2017

    2017

  104. [112]

    EMP: Edge- assisted multi-vehicle perception

    Zhang, Xumiao and Zhang, Anlan and Sun, Jiachen and Zhu, Xiao and Guo, Y Ethan and Qian, Feng and Mao, Z Morley. EMP: Edge- assisted multi-vehicle perception. In Proceedings of the 27th Annual International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking , pages 545–558, 2021

    2021

  105. [113]

    Hardware-assisted service live migration in resource- limited edge computing systems

    Zhe Zhou, Xintong Li, Xiaoyang Wang, Zheng Liang, Guangyu Sun, and Guojie Luo. Hardware-assisted service live migration in resource- limited edge computing systems. In 2020 57th ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference (DAC), pages 1–6. IEEE, 2020

    2020

  106. [114]

    5G MEC computation handoff for mobile augmented reality

    Zhou, Pengyuan and Finley, Benjamin and Li, Xuebing and Tarkoma, Sasu and Kangasharju, Jussi and Ammar, Mostafa and Hui, Pan. 5G MEC computation handoff for mobile augmented reality. arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.00256, 2021. 16 A Appendix In this section, we describe our setup to...

    2021 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.