MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3197830211 · doi:10.1109/lcn52139.2021.9524965

Transfer Learning-Based Accelerated Deep Reinforcement Learning for 5G RAN Slicing

2021· article· en· W3197830211 on OpenAlexafffund
Ahmad M. Nagib, Hatem Abou-Zeid, Hossam S. Hassanein

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware-Defined Networks and 5G
Canadian institutionsEricsson (Canada)Queen's University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsReinforcement learningComputer scienceSlicingTransfer of learningResource allocationConvergence (economics)Base stationRadio access networkRanCellular networkResource management (computing)Distributed computingReduction (mathematics)Artificial intelligenceComputer networkWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Deep Reinforcement Learning (DRL) algorithms have been recently proposed to solve dynamic Radio Resource Management (RRM) problems in 5G networks. However, the slow convergence experienced by traditional DRL agents puts many doubts on their practical adoption in cellular networks. In this paper, we first discuss the need to have accelerated DRL algorithms. We then analyze the exploration behavior of various state-of-the-art DRL algorithms for slice resource allocation, and compare it with the traditional 5G Radio Access Network (RAN) slicing baselines. Finally, we propose a transfer learning-accelerated DRL-based solution for slice resource allocation. In particular, we tackle the challenge of slow convergence by transferring the policy learned by a DRL agent at an expert base station (BS) to newly deployed agents at target learner BSs. Our approach shows a remarkable reduction in convergence time and a significant performance improvement compared with its non-accelerated counterparts when tested against multiple traffic load variations.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.976
Threshold uncertainty score0.707

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations23
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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