MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3118929245 · doi:10.1109/mnet.011.2000591

Network Slicing with MEC and Deep Reinforcement Learning for the Internet of Vehicles

2021· article· en· W3118929245 on OpenAlexafffund
Zoubeir Mlika, Soumaya Cherkaoui

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Network · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware-Defined Networks and 5G
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologiesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceReinforcement learningDistributed computingMarkov decision processResource allocationComputer networkBenchmark (surveying)Artificial intelligenceMarkov process

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The interconnection of vehicles in the future fifth generation (5G) wireless ecosystem forms the so-called Internet of Vehicles (IoV). IoV offers new kinds of applications requiring delay-sensitive, compute-intensive, and bandwidth-hungry services. Mobile edge computing (MEC) and network slicing are two of the key enabler technologies in 5G networks that can be used to optimize the allocation of the network resources and guarantee the diverse requirements of IoV applications. As traditional model-based optimization techniques generally end up with NP-hard and strongly non-convex and nonlinear mathematical programming formulations, in this article, we introduce a model-free approach based on deep reinforcement learning (DRL) to solve the resource allocation problem in MEC-enabled IoV networks based on network slicing. Furthermore, the solution uses non-orthogonal multiple access (NOMA) to enable better exploitation of the scarce channel resources. The considered problem addresses jointly the channel and power allocation, the slice selection, and the vehicle selection (vehicle grouping). We model the problem as a single-agent Markov decision process. Then we solve it using DRL with the well-known deep Q learning (DQL) algorithm. We show that our approach is robust and effective under different network conditions compared to benchmark solutions.

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)0.001
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.206 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations88
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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