Automating Network Operation Centers with Superhuman Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Today's Network Operation Centres (NOC) consist of teams of network professionals responsible for monitoring and taking actions for their network's health. Most of these NOC actions are relatively complex and executed manually; only the simplest tasks can be automated with rules-based software. But today's networks are getting larger and more complex. Therefore, deciding what action to take in the face of non-trivial problems has essentially become an art that depends on collective human intelligence of NOC technicians, specialized support teams organized by technology domains, and vendors' technical support. This model is getting increasingly expensive and inefficient, and the automation of all or at least some NOC tasks is now considered a desirable step towards autonomous and self-healing networks. In this article, we investigate whether such decisions can be taken by Artificial Intelligence instead of collective human intelligence, specifically by the Machine Learning method of Reinforcement Learning (RL), which has been shown in computer games to outperform humans. We build an Action Recommendation Engine (ARE) based on RL, train it with expert rules or by letting it explore outcomes by itself, and show that it can learn new and more efficient strategies that outperform expert rules designed by humans. ARE can be used in face of network problems to either quickly recommend actions to NOC technicians or autonomously take actions for fast recovery. “This work has been submitted to the IEEE for possible publication. Copyright may be transferred without notice, after which this version may no longer be accessible.”
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".