IAES International Journal of Artificial Intelligence (IJ-AI)

Vol. 13, No. 1, March 2024, pp. 143∼152

ISSN: 2252-8938, DOI: 10.11591/ijai.v13.i1.pp143-152 ❒ 143

Intelligent task processing using mobile edge computing:

processing time optimization
Sara Maftah1 , Mohamed El Ghmary2 , Hamid El Bouabidi1 , Mohamed Amnai1 , Ali Ouacha3
1 Department
of Computer Science, Faculty of Sciences, Ibn Tofaı̈l University, Kenitra, Morocco
2 Department of Computer Science, FSDM, Sidi Mohamed Ben Abdellah University, Fez, Morocco
3 Department of Computer Science, Faculty of Sciences, Mohammed V University, Rabat, Morocco

Article Info ABSTRACT

Article history: The fast-paced development of the internet of things led to the increase of com-
puting resource services that could provide a fast response time, which is an un-
Received Jul 27, 2022
satisfied feature when using cloud infrastructures due to network latency. There-
Revised Jan 18, 2023 fore, mobile edge computing became an emerging model by extending compu-
Accepted Jan 30, 2023 tation and storage resources to the network edge, to meet the demands of delay-
sensitive and heavy computing applications. Computation offloading is the main
Keywords: feature that makes Edge computing surpass the existing cloud-based technolo-
gies to break limitations such as computing capabilities, battery resources, and
Computation offloading storage availability, it enhances the durability and performance of mobile de-
EdgeCloudSim vices by offloading local intensive computation tasks to edge servers. However,
Edge orchestration the optimal solution is not always guaranteed by offloading computation, there-
Internet of things fore, the offloading decision is a crucial step depending on many parameters that
Mobile edge computing should be taken in consideration. In this paper, we use a simulator to compare a
Offloading decision two tier edge orchestrator architecture with the results obtained by implement-
Processing optimization ing a system model that aims to minimize a task’s processing time constrained
by time delay and the limited device’s computational resource and usage based
on a modified version.

This is an open access article under the CC BY-SA license.

Corresponding Author:
Sara Maftah
Department of Computer Science, Faculty of Sciences, Ibn Tofaı̈ll University
University Campus, BP 133, Kenitra, Morocco
Email: [email protected]

1. INTRODUCTION
Our world today is dominated by cloud computing which is an efficient computing platform that grew
rapidly over the last few decades. Driven by the endless connected devices which represent the internet of
things and their massive real-time computing and processing demands, as well as the astonishing evolution
of communication and networking technologies, cloud computing infrastructures became inappropriate to per-
form with an acceptable level in face of these high quality requirements. Motivated by these challenges and
the need to make a move towards the 5th Generation of cellular network, mobile edge computing appeared
with capabilities such as storage and computational capacities that offer low latency, high bandwidth and real-
time access [1]. The concept of edge computing is regarded as the mechanism that allows the computation
to be performed at the edge of the network [2]. However, the main challenge is that the internet of things
connects many heterogeneous devices with limited local computing resources, which will require a strategy
that enables these devices to offload their heavy tasks to a processing environment represented by the deployed
virtual machines on the nearby edge servers [3]. Therefore, computation offloading comes in useful with the

Journal homepage: http://ijai.iaescore.com

144 ❒ ISSN: 2252-8938

ability to overcome the resource constraints on user devices, especially for the computation intensive tasks [2].
Computation offloading is then considered as a way to offer powerful infrastructure resources to augment the
computing capabilities of mobile devices [4].

In computation offloading, a mobile device can adopt one of the following three modes: local execu-
tion, partial offloading and full offloading [5]. This process, made to achieve a minimal task completion and the
least energy consumption, involves application partitioning, task execution and offloading decision on which,
according to [6], the edge server depends to calculate the execution time of each mobile devices’ request. In this
regard, since most of the existing literature concerns only one or two of the said metrics, a variety of solutions
have been proposed, and the related publications according to [7] has increased in the recent years to make
joint optimization a promising research area. Furthermore, Shakarami et al. [8] produced a well organized
review on computation offloading mechanisms that are based on game theory methodology. In recent surveys
[9]-[10], many existing offloading methods were examined, such as machine learning and artificial intelligence
methodologies, which proved to have an important impact on the subject. Lin et al. [9] found that machine
learning methods can solve the scalability issue in large scale computation offloading based on a centralized
mode to achieve an intelligent decision. Moreover, in [11] a detailed taxonomy of offloading mechanisms based
on machine learning was proposed.

In order to improve the offloading rate and reduce the energy consumption of the device in a single
user multitask scenario, in [12] dynamically adjusted the transmitting power and local central processing unit
(CPU) frequency. Adopting the same single multitask device scenario, where the task has an execution time
deadline and the device is constrained by limited energy, El Ghmary et al. [13], [14] aimed to minimize the
energy consumption by using simulated annealing that serves to decide the tasks’ offloading and the resource
allocation. The offloading decision is obtained based on a multitask scenario, since a single application running
on a mobile device is generally divided into multiple tasks which means the offloading decision concerns each
one of these tasks [15]. In a more complex environment consisting of an edge server and multiple mobile
devices each having a set of tasks, Huang et al. [16] discussed the computation offloading and considered
its optimization as a mixed integer non linear programming problem, to which they proposed an algorithm
based on time and energy consumption to optimize the computation offloading process. Moreover, when it
comes to time consumption resources, it includes local and edge processing time as well as communication
time consumption in which uploading the input data and downloading the output result. However, most studies
ignore the latter, assuming that the output data size is insignificant when compared with the input data size [5],
[12], [15]-[17].

Besides, knowing that internet of things sensors are generally powered by batteries with a limited
capacity, Khan et al. [18] added energy harvesting devices that are being highly considered to improve energy
efficiency along with computation offloading in a scenario consisting of multiple mobile devices and edge
servers, the authors then proposed an improved strategy based on integer linear programming to solve the
energy consumption issue. Likewise, aiming an energy optimized model, Bi et al. [19] proposed an offloading
decision optimization based on a genetic and simulated annealing method. Meanwhile, Zhang et al. [20]
combined a simulated annealing method with the genetic algorithm for the purpose of selecting mobile edge
servers automatically. Furthermore, in order to minimize the costs, Kuang et al. [21] solved the offloading
decision problem by comparing the genetic algorithm, the greedy strategy and backtracking to find that the
greedy strategy is the suitable one for their problem resolution.
There are many tools available for researchers to simulate and obtain real world experiment results,
such as EdgeCloudSim [22], in which the authors implemented various samples using different architectures
in each one of them, to prove the benefits of deploying the edge computing paradigm [23]. The existing
simulation of computation offloading uses the virtual machine capacity to decide whether to offload or process
locally. Due to the constraint of the mobile device’s energy consumption and the limited time that a task should
take to be completed, we propose a new offloading decision making mechanism in which local processing
time will be taken in consideration as well as the mobile device’s energy consumption and compare it with
the existing two tier with an edge orchestrator architecture. After introducing the theme and its literature, the
paper is structured as follows. Section 2 is a description of the system model. The problem is formulated in
section 3 as well as the elaboration of its resolution. The simulation environment is then described in section 4
and the results are presented and discussed in section 5. Finally, section 6 represents the paper’s conclusion.

Int J Artif Intell, Vol. 13, No. 1, March 2024: 143–152

Int J Artif Intell ISSN: 2252-8938 ❒ 145

2. SYSTEM MODEL
Computation offloading in mobile edge computing was introduced to support the interconnection of
resource-limited devices with the internet, it enables the mobile device to offload a part of the computation to
a nearby remote server in order to increase its capabilities and prolong its battery lifespan. However, computa-
tion offloading is a complicated process based on three key components: task partition, offloading decision an
resource allocation [9]. It is also divided into two distinct modes: binary and partial offloading [9]. For the pur-
pose of studying this technique, we will consider an architecture where a single mobile device needs to process
N independent tasks, either by executing the task locally or offloading it to the mobile edge server according
to a certain decision making mechanism. Figure 1 is an illustration of the general deployed architecture.

Figure 1. System model topology

The adopted system model involves, as said before, a Single Mobile device that contains a set of N
independent tasks ready to be processed, either by the mobile device itself or by offloading it to a nearby edge
server in case the local resources were not enough. The computation offloading decision can minimize the
processing time [24], hence the response time will be drastically improved [25] as well as energy consumption
[26], [27]. Each task is represented by i ∈ N where N ={1,2, ... , N} and identified by its data size Disize , data
input size Diin and data output size Diout . In the context of studying computation offloading in a mobile edge
computing server, we will focus on the communication model while considering the usage of the mobile device.
Assuming that tasks are independent, communication and computation costs will be calculated separately, on
both the mobile device and the mobile edge computing server.
2.1. Local processing
Given Disize as the data size of a task i ∈ N = {1,2, ... , N}, and S md as the processing speed of the
mobile device, the processing time will be calculated as shown in (1). The processing time Timd represents the
time cost that will be required for a mobile device to process and execute a certain task i. Timd will be used
later to calculate local energy consumption.

Disize
Timd = (1)
S md
2.2. Edge processing
When the computation resources in the mobile device are not enough to process a certain task, it gets
offloaded to the mobile edge computing server. Thus, response time in this case involves a transmission delay
which represents both uploading the input and downloading the output as well as the time for processing the
task on the mobile edge computing server. In order to get the cost of response time, we will elaborate both
transmission delay and the processing time.

Intelligent task processing using mobile edge computing: processing time optimization (Sara Maftah)
146 ❒ ISSN: 2252-8938

− Transmission delay: it includes both time to upload the task’s input data denoted as Tiup as well as time to
download its output data denoted as Tidown , those metrics are related to the transmission bandwidth bw. The
representation of each one is shown in the (2) and (3):

Diin
Tiup = (2)
bw

Diout
Tidown = (3)
bw
− Processing time: time for the mobile edge computing server to process a certain task, denoted as Timec
where S mec is the processing speed of the mobile edge computing server.

Disize
Timec = (4)
S mec
− Total time cost: in order to get the total time cost in case a task i was offloaded to the mobile edge computing
server, we will be using the (2)-(4) to calculate Tiof f .

Diin Disize Dout

Tiof f = + mec + i (5)
bw S bw

2.3. Local energy consumption

In the previous section we identified and denoted the various equations to calculate time consumption
at each level. Similarly, with each operation, whether it’s processing, transmitting or waiting for a response,
both the mobile device and the mobile edge computing server consume energy. In this paper, we focus on the
energy consumed by the mobile device only, this consumption is composed of three parts. In case the task is
processed locally we calculate the energy cost of local processing, otherwise, the task gets offloaded and we
calculate the energy cost while transmitting the data which includes uploading the data and downloading the
results and the idle energy, which represents the consumption while the mobile device is on hold and waiting for
the task to be processed on the mobile edge computing server. The energy consumption model for the mobile
device is then divided into three modes: local processing, transmission and idle which is a state, according
to [28], where Mobile devices are often on a connected-standby operation mode, which means they are idle
and connected to the communication channels as well for any eventual usability. This mode allows the mobile
devices to run on low power which increases the battery life. Energy consumption on the mobile device while
processing a task is denoted as Eilocal and calculated by multiplying time cost Timd by the consumed power by
md
the mobile device Pproc while processing the task.

Eilocal = Timd ∗ Pproc

md
(6)

2.4. Computation offloading decision

The decision, in computation offloading, to whether process a certain task locally or send it to a more
powerful device, the mobile edge server in our case, is crucial. This process consists of migrating computing
tasks to higher resourceful servers that are located at the edge of the network. Jaddoa et al. [25] proposed
a dynamic offloading decision based on response time and energy consumption. Likewise, Liao et al. [29]
implemented a joint decision making based on both communication and computation resources. Meanwhile,
in [24], [30], [31] the decision to offload was based on a fuzzy logic using minimum and maximum functions
to determine the result of multiple combined rules within a set. In our paper, knowing that mobile devices
have limited computing resources, the decision mechanism is based on setting a limited processing time in the
mobile device in order to deliver an output result within a reasonable response time, as well as balancing the
usage of these resources by setting a CPU usage threshold. The CPU usage in a utilization-based approach
affects directly the consumed power [32], and it is considered that energy consumption and CPU utilization
increase linearly [27], [33], [34].

Int J Artif Intell, Vol. 13, No. 1, March 2024: 143–152

Int J Artif Intell ISSN: 2252-8938 ❒ 147

3. PROBLEM FORMULATION AND RESOLUTION

3.1. Problem formulation
Given xi ∈ {0, 1} the offloading decision of a certain task i, represented by two possibilities. If
xi = 0, the task is processed locally, however, if xi = 1 the computation is then offloaded to the mobile edge
server. In this paper, we aim to reduce the processing time of tasks considering a processing deadline and
energy consumption that should not be exceeded by the mobile device. Hence, the optimization problem can
be written as follows:
N N
Dsize Diin Disize Dout
X X  
min (1 − xi ) ∗ imd + xi ∗ + mec + i (P1)
md ,S req
xi ,S md ,Pproc
i=1
S i=1
bw S bw

s.t. C1 : xi ∈ (0, 1) ∀ i ∈ {1, 2, ..., N }

Disize
C2 : ∀ i ∈ {1, 2, ..., N } (1 − xi ) ∗ < Timax
S md
N
X Dsize md
C3 : ∀ i ∈ {1, 2, ..., N } (1 − xi ) ∗ imd ∗ Pproc < E max
i=1
S
C4 : ∀ i ∈ {1, 2, ..., N } xi ∗ Sireq < S mec
where the first constraint C1 implies that the offloading decision xi of a task i is a binary variable and should
be equal to 0 or 1. The second constraint C2 was set to limit the processing time locally Timd , in case the
processing time of a task i exceeds the maximum value Timax , which represents the maximum time cost for a
single task to be processed. Therefore, if Timd > Timax the task i gets offloaded to an edge server. The third
constraint C3 makes sure, in case of local processing, that the energy consumed while processing the set of
tasks of a certain application does not exceed a maximum value E max which represents a maximum energy
consumption by the mobile device.
Finally, using EdgeCloudSim, the load generator module generates a certain task i, and the orchestra-
tor predicts the required virtual machine capacity and compares it with the available resources at that moment
whether on the mobile device or the edge server. Therefore, the required processing speed for a certain task
Sireq is compared to the virtual machine processing speed S mec accordingly to satisfy the fourth constraint
C4. The value of S md is defined before starting the simulation, along with other metrics. Once the simulation
begins, the load generator generates the tasks and predicts its required processing speed Sireq in a sequential
order based on their start time, and each task has the necessary characteristics such as data size Disize , input
Diin and output Diout size and the required computing resources. The objective function aims processing time
minimization based on a deadline and a maximum energy consumption on the mobile device as well as the
required processing speed.
3.2. Offloading decision mechanism
Assuming that the offloading decision is known, resolving the problem P1 is achieved by satisfying
the processing time in a condition of a deadline and maximum energy consumption in case of local process-
ing. Otherwise, in case of offloading the task, the required processing speed will be considered for the task’s
completion. S md is given as a constant which is used to compute the local processing time, and therefore Timd
will be subjected to C2. The CPU usage is calculated by EdgeCloudSim using a class that provides a realistic
utilization model based on some metrics, mainly the usage percentage and processing speed required by the
task. Therefore, in case xi = 0 the utilization model predicts the task’s requirements and its CPU usage in
the mobile device, and calculates afterwards the consumed energy to satisfy the third constraint C3. However,
in case xi = 1, P1 is achieved by satisfying the task’s processing time in a condition of processing speed
requirement only, hence P1 is subjected to C4.
The latest version of EdgeCloudSim is provided with five different samples and each one of them
functions different than the other according to a certain processing scenario and orchestration mechanism. The
purpose of this paper is on one hand to show the utility of computation offloading and its added value in
terms of processing time. On the other hand, implementing an algorithm which is an initiation to experiment
different decision making mechanisms in order to obtain better results. The algorithm is a an implementation
of the objective function aiming to minimize processing time considering a local processing deadline, a mobile
device energy consumption threshold and a processing speed requirements.

Intelligent task processing using mobile edge computing: processing time optimization (Sara Maftah)
148 ❒ ISSN: 2252-8938

3.3. Modified two tier with edge orchestator algorithm

Our approach to tackle the problem we formulated in 3.1. consists on a simple implementation of the
objective function. The objective function aims to minimize the processing time considering a local processing
deadline, a mobile device energy consumption threshold and a processing speed requirement. The modified
two tier with edge orchestrator algorithm shown in Algorithm 1.

Algorithm 1 : Modified two tier with edge orchestrator algorithm

1: Disize , S md , S mec , Sireq , Pproc
md , T max , E max
i
2: for i ∈ N do
req
3: Estimate Si
Disize
4: Timd = S md
Disize
5: Timec = S mec
6: Eilocal = Timd ∗ md
Pproc
7: for j ∈ N do
8: Ejlocal ← Eilocal
9: E local + = Ejlocal
10: end for
11: if Timd < Timax and E local < E max then
12: tmp ← 0
13: else
14: if Sireq < S mec then
15: tmp ← 1
16: end if
17: end if
18: xi ← tmp
19: end for

4. SIMULATION ENVIRONMENT
A number of simulation experiments have been conducted using the mentioned simulating tool, which
is an extended version of CloudSim [35], developed to match the edge computing environment and provide
accurate results. A simulation starts with an initialization phase by loading the configuration files needed to
run the scenario and by generating a random set of tasks that will be processed sequentially according to their
start time. For each task, there will be a decision on whether to process it on the mobile device or offload it to
an edge server. This decision will be based on multiple factors.

5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

In order to compare the processing time of the generated tasks, the results were obtained by running
each scenario multiple times. In each experiment, we adopted three different scenarios: Mobile, Edge and
Hybrid. The first one is an only mobile processing scenario in which the tasks are executed locally in the
mobile device. Meanwhile the second scenario depends on a coarse-grained offloading [36] and offloads the
entire set of tasks to an edge server. Finally, the third scenario depends on partial offloading or what we can call
fine-grained offloading [36]. In this case, only the tasks with a heavy computation are offloaded according to
a decision making strategy in order to optimize the response time. Moreover, in order to evaluate the adopted
offloading decision making mechanism, we compare the results of a modified approach of the original Two-
tier with Edge Offloading architecture. Figure 2 and Figure 3 are graphical representations of processing a
load of independent tasks sequentially, in terms of response time using the three different scenarios and opting
two different offloading decision making mechanisms. In Figure 2 we use the Two-tier with Edge Offloading
mechanism which depends on comparing the required capacity to process the task and the available resources.
We accumulate afterwords the time cost throughout the experiment, which resulted a total response time cost
of 1272.5716, 544.3834 and 1055.8426 seconds adopting respectively the Mobile, Edge and Hybrid scenario.
It is obvious that response time when the task is processed in the edge server is better due to the available
computing resources, meanwhile, in the hybrid scenario, the mobile device depends mainly on its resources
until they are no longer enough, however it offloads at the same time the tasks which percentage usage was
predicted to be demanding which explains the high time consumption at first (local processing and computation

Int J Artif Intell, Vol. 13, No. 1, March 2024: 143–152

Int J Artif Intell ISSN: 2252-8938 ❒ 149

offloading transmission delays). Meanwhile, in Figure 3 the benefits of a full or partial offloading to an edge
server are obvious in terms of processing time.

Figure 2. Time consumption while processing a set of heavy tasks using a Two-tier with edge orchestrator
architecture

Figure 3. Time consumption while processing a set of heavy tasks using a modified Two-tier with edge
orchestrator architecture

Moreover, in case of partial offloading, as said before, the decision making is the crucial part. In this
experiment, beside comparing the required capacity to process a task and the available resources, we depend
on three metrics to decide whether to offload or not, which are the local processing time and the CPU usage,
hence energy consumption. We obtained a total response time cost of 1289.2961, 581.3376 and 711.8558
seconds adopting respectively the Mobile, Edge and Hybrid scenario. We compare the results obtained from
the Two-tier with edge orchestrator architecture and the modified version to find that 343.9868 seconds were
saved when processing the tasks based on the customized offloading decision. Figure 4 represents the total
processing cost in terms of time consumption and shows the enhancement made when we adopted the cus-
tomized offloading decision making in the hybrid processing scenario. Hence, whether opting for the Two-tier

Intelligent task processing using mobile edge computing: processing time optimization (Sara Maftah)
150 ❒ ISSN: 2252-8938

with edge orchestrator architecture or a modified version of this strategy, response time is optimized. However,
the average response time was reduced by approximately 32.5% compared with the initial results in a hybrid
scenario.

Figure 4. Comparing time consumption using two different offloading decision making mechanism

6. CONCLUSION
The aim of this study is to simulate the computation offloading process between a mobile device
and an edge server in order to improve the processing time of completed tasks, by adopting an offloading
decision considering the virtual machine capacity, a local processing deadline, as well as a limited CPU usage
when it comes to the mobile device. The obtained results are reduced in terms of processing time and energy
consumption as well compared to results provided by the simulation tool EdgeCloudSim using an existing
Two-tier with edge orchestrator and a modified version of the said architecture. This paper is the first step
into computation offloading in edge computing, a field that caught the attention of many researchers, and a first
attempt to implement a strategy that could be extended in future work to include an optimization problem where
energy consumption whether on the mobile device or the mobile edge computing server is also considered in
the process of the computation offloading decision. Including the cloud into our system model is also intended
to have a larger ground for further experiments.

REFERENCES
[1] N. Hassan, K.-L. A. Yau, and C. Wu, “Edge computing in 5g: A review,” IEEE Access, vol. 7, pp. 127 276–127 289, 2019, doi:
10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2938534.
[2] D. B. Abdullah and H. H. Mohammed, “Computation offloading in the internet of connected vehicles: A systematic literature
survey,” in Journal of Physics: Conference Series, vol. 1818, no. 1, 2021, p. 012122, doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/1818/1/012122.
[3] A. Ouacha and M. El Ghmary, “Virtual machine migration in mec based artificial intelligence technique,” IAES International Journal
of Artificial Intelligence, vol. 10, no. 1, p. 244, 2021, doi: 10.11591/ijai.v10.i1.pp244-252.
[4] L. Lin, X. Liao, H. Jin, and P. Li, “Computation offloading toward edge computing,” Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 107, no. 8, pp.
1584–1607, 2019, doi: 10.1109/JPROC.2019.2922285.
[5] Y. Deng, Z. Chen, X. Yao, S. Hassan, and A. M. Ibrahim, “Parallel offloading in green and sustainable mobile edge computing
for delay-constrained iot system,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 68, no. 12, pp. 12 202–12 214, 2019, doi:
10.1109/TVT.2019.2944926.
[6] A. Shahidinejad and M. Ghobaei-Arani, “Joint computation offloading and resource provisioning for edge-cloud computing envi-
ronment: A machine learning-based approach,” Software: Practice and Experience, vol. 50, no. 12, pp. 2212–2230, 2020, doi:
10.1002/spe.2888.
[7] B. Wang, C. Wang, W. Huang, Y. Song, and X. Qin, “A survey and taxonomy on task offloading for edge-cloud computing,” IEEE
Access, vol. 8, pp. 186 080–186 101, 2020, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3029649.

Int J Artif Intell, Vol. 13, No. 1, March 2024: 143–152

Int J Artif Intell ISSN: 2252-8938 ❒ 151

[8] A. Shakarami, A. Shahidinejad, and M. Ghobaei-Arani, “A review on the computation offloading approaches in mobile edge comput-
ing: A g ame-theoretic perspective,” Software: Practice and Experience, vol. 50, no. 9, pp. 1719–1759, 2020, doi: 10.1002/spe.2839.
[9] H. Lin, S. Zeadally, Z. Chen, H. Labiod, and L. Wang, “A survey on computation offloading modeling for edge computing,” Journal
of Network and Computer Applications, p. 102781, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.jnca.2020.102781.
[10] G. Carvalho, B. Cabral, V. Pereira, and J. Bernardino, “Computation offloading in edge computing environments us-
ing artificial intelligence techniques,” Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, vol. 95, p. 103840, 2020, doi:
10.1016/j.engappai.2020.103840.
[11] A. Shakarami, M. Ghobaei-Arani, and A. Shahidinejad, “A survey on the computation offloading approaches in mobile edge com-
puting: A machine learning-based perspective,” Computer Networks, p. 107496, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.comnet.2020.107496.
[12] H. Li, “Multi-task offloading and resource allocation for energy-efficiency in mobile edge computing,” International Journal of
Computer Techniques, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 5–13, 2018, doi: 10.29126/23942231/IJCT-V5I1P2.
[13] M. El Ghmary, T. Chanyour, Y. Hmimz, and M. O. C. Malki, “Efficient multi-task offloading with energy and computational
resources optimization in a mobile edge computing node.” International Journal of Electrical & Computer Engineering, vol. 9,
no. 6, 2019, doi: 10.11591/ijece.v9i6.pp4908-4919.
[14] M. El Ghmary, Y. Hmimz, T. Chanyour, and M. O. C. Malki, “Energy and processing time efficiency for an optimal offloading in
a mobile edge computing node,” International Journal of Communication Networks and Information Security, vol. 12, no. 3, pp.
389–393, 2020, doi: 10.17762/ijcnis.v12i3.4750.
[15] M. El Ghmary, Y. Hmimz, T. Chanyour, and M. O. C. Malki, “Time and resource constrained offloading with multi-
task in a mobile edge computing node.” International Journal of Electrical & Computer Engineering, vol. 10, 2020, doi:
10.11591/ijece.v10i4.pp3757-3766.
[16] M. Huang, Q. Zhai, Y. Chen, S. Feng, and F. Shu, “Multi-objective whale optimization algorithm for computation offloading
optimization in mobile edge computing,” Sensors, vol. 21, no. 8, p. 2628, 2021, doi: 10.3390/s21082628.
[17] T. Chanyour, Y. Hmimz, M. El Ghmary, and M. O. C. Malki, “Delay-aware and user-adaptive offloading of computation-intensive
applications with per-task delay in mobile edge computing networks,” International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and
Applications, vol. 11, no. 1, 2020.
[18] P. W. Khan, K. Abbas, H. Shaiba, A. Muthanna, A. Abuarqoub, and M. Khayyat, “Energy efficient computation offloading mech-
anism in multi-server mobile edge computing—an integer linear optimization approach,” Electronics, vol. 9, no. 6, p. 1010, 2020,
doi: 10.3390/electronics9061010.
[19] J. Bi, H. Yuan, S. Duanmu, M. C. Zhou, and A. Abusorrah, “Energy-optimized partial computation offloading in mobile edge
computing with genetic simulated-annealing-based particle swarm optimization,” IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 2020, doi:
10.1109/JIOT.2020.3024223.
[20] Y.-w. Zhang, W.-m. Zhang, K. Peng, D.-c. Yan, and Q.-l. Wu, “A novel edge server selection method based on combined genetic
algorithm and simulated annealing algorithm,” Automatika, vol. 62, no. 1, pp. 32–43, 2021, doi: 10.1080/00051144.2020.1837499.
[21] L. Kuang, T. Gong, S. OuYang, H. Gao, and S. Deng, “Offloading decision methods for multiple users with structured tasks in edge
computing for smart cities,” Future Generation Computer Systems, vol. 105, pp. 717–729, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.future.2019.12.039.
[22] C. Sonmez, A. Ozgovde, and C. Ersoy, “Edgecloudsim: An environment for performance evaluation of edge computing systems,”
Transactions on Emerging Telecommunications Technologies, vol. 29, no. 11, p. e3493, 2018, doi: 10.1002/ett.3493.
[23] C. Sonmez, A. Ozgovde, and C. Ersoy, “Performance evaluation of single-tier and two-tier cloudlet assisted applica-
tions,” in 2017 IEEE International Conference on Communications Workshops (ICC Workshops), 2017, pp. 302–307, doi:
10.1109/ICCW.2017.7962674.
[24] V. Nguyen, T. T. Khanh, T. Z. Oo, N. H. Tran, E.-N. Huh, and C. S. Hong, “Latency minimization in a fuzzy-
based mobile edge orchestrator for iot applications,” IEEE Communications Letters, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 84–88, 2020, doi:
10.1109/LCOMM.2020.3024957.
[25] A. Jaddoa, G. Sakellari, E. Panaousis, G. Loukas, and P. G. Sarigiannidis, “Dynamic decision support for resource offloading
in heterogeneous internet of things environments,” Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory, vol. 101, p. 102019, 2020, doi:
10.1016/j.simpat.2019.102019.
[26] M. Rahati-Quchani, S. Abrishami, and M. Feizi, “An efficient mechanism for computation offloading in mobile-edge computing,”
arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.06849, 2019, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1909.06849.
[27] M. Daraghmeh, I. Al Ridhawi, M. Aloqaily, Y. Jararweh, and A. Agarwal, “A power management approach to reduce energy
consumption for edge computing servers,” in 2019 Fourth International Conference on Fog and Mobile Edge Computing (FMEC),
2019, pp. 259–264, doi: 10.1109/FMEC.2019.8795328.
[28] J. Haj-Yahya, Y. Sazeides, M. Alser, E. Rotem, and O. Mutlu, “Techniques for reducing the connected-standby energy consumption
of mobile devices,” in 2020 IEEE International Symposium on High Performance Computer Architecture (HPCA), 2020, pp. 623–
636, doi: 10.1109/HPCA47549.2020.00057.
[29] Y. Liao, L. Shou, Q. Yu, Q. Ai, and Q. Liu, “Joint offloading decision and resource allocation for mobile edge computing enabled
networks,” Computer Communications, vol. 154, pp. 361–369, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.comcom.2020.02.071.
[30] C. Sonmez, A. Ozgovde, and C. Ersoy, “Fuzzy workload orchestration for edge computing,” IEEE Transactions on Network and
Service Management, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 769–782, 2019, doi:10.1109/TNSM.2019.2901346.
[31] T. T. Khanh, V. Nguyen, and E.-N. Huh, “Fuzzy-based mobile edge orchestrators in heterogeneous IoT environments: An online
workload balancing approach,” Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing, vol. 2021, 2021, doi: 10.1155/2021/5539186.
[32] Q.-H. Nguyen and F. Dressler, “A smartphone perspective on computation offloading—a survey,” Computer Communications, vol.
159, pp. 133–154, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.comcom.2020.05.001.
[33] E. Ahvar, A.-C. Orgerie, and A. Lebre, “Estimating energy consumption of cloud, fog and edge computing infrastructures,” IEEE
Transactions on Sustainable Computing, 2019, doi: 10.1109/TSUSC.2019.2905900.
[34] T. Ciesielczyk et al., “An approach to reduce energy consumption and performance losses on heterogeneous servers using power
capping,” Journal of Scheduling, pp. 1–17, 2020, doi: 10.1007/s10951-020-00649-4.
[35] R. N. Calheiros, R. Ranjan, A. Beloglazov, C. A. De Rose, and R. Buyya, “Cloudsim: a toolkit for modeling and simulation of cloud
computing environments and evaluation of resource provisioning algorithms,” Software: Practice and experience, vol. 41, no. 1, pp.

Intelligent task processing using mobile edge computing: processing time optimization (Sara Maftah)
152 ❒ ISSN: 2252-8938

23–50, 2011, doi: 10.1002/spe.995.

[36] Z. Wang, W. Hao, L. Yan, Z. Han, and S. Yang, “Cooperative scheduling of multi-core and cloud resources: fine-grained of-
floading strategy for multithreaded applications,” IET Communications, vol. 14, no. 10, pp. 1632–1641, 2020, doi: 10.1049/iet-
com.2019.1060.

BIOGRAPHIES OF AUTHORS

Sara Maftah is a Ph.D. student at the Faculty of Sciences, Ibn Tofaı̈l University, Kenitra,
Morocco. Affiliated with the Research Laboratory in Computer Science and Telecommunications
(LaRIT). She obtained a Research Master’s degree in Cloud and High Performance Computing from
the National School for Computer Science and System Analysis (Ensias), Mohammed V University
(UM5), Rabat, Morocco. She can be contacted at email: [email protected].

Mohamed El Ghmary is a Professor of Computer Science at the Faculty of Sciences

Dhar El Mahraz (FSDM), Sidi Mohamed Ben Abdellah University, Fez, Morocco. He is an asso-
ciate member of the Intelligent Processing and Security of Systems (IPSS) team of Computer Sci-
ence Department at the Faculty of Sciences, Mohamed V University (UM5), Rabat Morocco. He
is also an associate member of Research Laboratory in Computer Science and Telecommunications
(LARIT), Team Networks and Telecommunications, Faculty of Sciences, Ibn Tofail University, Ken-
itra, Morocco. His research interests are mobile edge computing (MEC), Cloud computing, machine
learning, deep learning, intelligent systems and optimization. He can be contacted at email: mo-
[email protected].

Hamid El Bouabidi is a Ph.D. student at the Faculty of Sciences, Ibn Tofaı̈l University,
Kenitra, Morocco. Affiliated with the Research Laboratory in Computer Science and Telecommuni-
cations (LARIT), Team Networks and Telecommunications. He obtained a Research Master’s degree
in Cloud and High-Performance Computing from the National School for Computer Science and Sys-
tems Analysis (ENSIAS), Mohammed V University (UM5), Rabat, Morocco. He can be contacted at
email: [email protected].

Mohamed Amnai has been an Assistant at National School of Applied Sciences

Khouribga, Settat University, Morocco. He joined, the Department of Computer Science and Math-
ematics, Faculty of Sciences Tofaı̈l University, Kenitra, Morocco, as an Associate Professor in 2018.
He is also an associate member of Research Laboratory in Computer Science and Telecommunica-
tions (LARIT), Team Networks and Telecommunications Faculty of Science, Kenitra, Morocco. He
is also an associate member of laboratory IPOSI National School of Applied Sciences, Hassan 1
University, Khouribga, Morocco. He can be contacted at email: [email protected].

Ali Ouacha is a professor of computer science at the Faculty of Sciences of Rabat (FSR)
Mohamed V University (UM5). He received his doctorate degree from the Mohammadia School
of Engineering (EMI). Ouacha is a permanent member of the Intelligent Processing and Security
of Systems (IPSS) team of Computer Science Department at the FSR. His research is currently fo-
cused on optimizing the performance of routing protocols in an internet of things (IoT), mobile edge
computing (MEC), and mobile ad-hoc networks environment. He is the author and co-author of sev-
eral publications in international journals and conferences. Ouacha is a member of the organizing
committees of several scientific events (Conferences and Congresses). He is also a member of the
Technical Program Committee (TPC) of several international conferences and journals. He can be
contacted at email: [email protected].

Int J Artif Intell, Vol. 13, No. 1, March 2024: 143–152