MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Machine Learning Based Resource Orchestration for 5G Network Slices

2019· article· en· W3010032444 on OpenAlexaff
Nazih Salhab, Rana Rahim, Rami Langar, Raouf Boutaba

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware-Defined Networks and 5G
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersCentre National de la Recherche ScientifiqueUniversité Libanaise
KeywordsComputer scienceSlicingOrchestrationQuality of serviceLatency (audio)Distributed computingKnapsack problemReliability (semiconductor)Resource allocationResource (disambiguation)Artificial intelligenceMachine learningComputer network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

5G will serve heterogeneous demands in terms of data-rate, reliability, latency, and efficiency. Mobile operators shall be able to serve all of these requirements using shared network infrastructure's resources. To this end, we propose in this paper a framework for resource orchestration for 5G network slices implementing four Quality of Service pillars. Starting from traffic classification, demands are marked so that they are best served by dedicated logical virtual networks called Network Slices (NSs). To optimally serve multiple NSs over the same physical network, we then implement a new dynamic slicing approach of network resources exploiting Machine Learning (ML). Indeed, as demands change dynamically, a mere recursive optimization leading to progressive convergence towards an optimum slice is not sufficient. Consequently, we need an initial well-informed slicing decision of physical resources from a total available resource pool. Moreover, we formalize both admission control and slice scheduler modules as Knapsack problems. Using our 5G experimental prototype based on OpenAirInterface (OAI), we generate a realistic dataset for evaluating ML based approaches as well as two baselines solutions (i.e. static slicing and uninformed random slicing-decisions). Simulation results show that using regression trees as an ML based approach for both classification and prediction, outperform other alternative solutions in terms of prediction accuracy and throughput.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.208 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations37
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSoftware-Defined Networks and 5GFrench-language works237,207