Scheduling of Low Latency Services in Softwarized Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The fifth generation (5G) networks are expected to support diverse business verticals (i.e., manufacturing, health care, etc.) with varying quality of service requirements. While today’s mobile networks are a one size fits all architecture, tomorrow’s 5G mobile networks are envisioned to encourage agility, programmability and elasticity through enabling a software-based architecture promoted by network slicing. Network slicing is a new paradigm consisting of partitioning the underlying network infrastructure into different logical network slices, each dedicated to address the requirements (i.e., ultra-low latency, ultra-reliability, etc.) of a group of services. Network Function Virtualization (NFV) and Software Defined Networking (SDN) technologies have been identified as main enablers of network slicing, facilitating the fulfillment of the aforementioned services’ requirements. In this paper, we study the Latency-Aware service scheduling (LASS) problem to solve the network function mapping, the traffic routing and the network service scheduling in the context of an ultra-low latency network slice to consider services with stringent deadlines. We propose the LASS-Game, a novel game-theoretic approach presenting a scalable solution for the LASS problem that accounts for the centralized aspect of the problem while leveraging a decentralized mapping, routing and scheduling decisions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".