MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

ML KPI Prediction in 5G and B5G Networks

2023· preprint· en· W4385269915 on OpenAlexafffund
Nguyen Phuc Tran, Oscar Delgado, Brigitte Jaumard, Fadi Bishay

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware-Defined Networks and 5G
Canadian institutionsCiena (Canada)Concordia University
FundersMitacs
KeywordsPerformance indicatorComputer scienceContext (archaeology)Metric (unit)ThroughputSlicingPerformance metricQuality of serviceService (business)Network performanceEnd-to-end principleKey (lock)Distributed computingComputer networkTelecommunicationsWirelessEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Network operators are facing new challenges when meeting the needs of their customers. The challenges arise due to the rise of new services, such as HD video streaming, IoT, autonomous driving, etc., and the exponential growth of network traffic. In this context, 5G and B5G networks have been evolving to accommodate a wide range of applications and use cases. Additionally, this evolution brings new features, like the ability to create multiple end-to-end isolated virtual networks using network slicing. Nevertheless, to ensure the quality of service, operators must maintain and optimize their networks in accordance with the key performance indicators (KPIs) and the slice service-level agreements (SLAs). In this paper, we introduce a machine learning (ML) model used to estimate throughput in 5G and B5G networks with end-to-end (E2E) network slices. Then, we combine the predicted throughput with the current network state to derive an estimate of other network KPIs, which can be used to further improve service assurance. To assess the efficiency of our solution, a performance metric was proposed. Numerical evaluations demonstrate that our KPI prediction model outperforms those derived from other methods with the same or nearly the same computational time.

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 score0.952
Threshold uncertainty score0.847

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Citations9
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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