Cost-Effective Two-Stage Network Slicing for Edge-Cloud Orchestrated Vehicular Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we study a network slicing problem for edge-cloud orchestrated vehicular networks, in which the edge and cloud servers are orchestrated to process computation tasks for reducing network slicing cost while satisfying the quality of service requirements. We propose a two-stage network slicing framework, which consists of 1) network planning stage in a large timescale to perform slice deployment, edge resource provisioning, and cloud resource provisioning, and 2) network operation stage in a small timescale to perform resource allocation and task dispatching. Particularly, we formulate the network slicing problem as a two-timescale stochastic optimization problem to minimize the network slicing cost. Since the problem is NP-hard due to coupled network planning and network operation stages, we develop a Two timescAle netWork Slicing (TAWS) algorithm by collaboratively integrating reinforcement learning (RL) and optimization methods, which can jointly make network planning and operation decisions. Specifically, by leveraging the timescale separation property of decisions, we decouple the problem into a large-timescale network planning subproblem and a small-timescale network operation subproblem. The former is solved by an RL method, and the latter is solved by an optimization method. Simulation results based on real-world vehicle traffic traces show that the TAWS can effectively reduce the network slicing cost as compared to the benchmark scheme.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".