LLM-Based Policy Generation for Intent-Based Management of Applications
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Automated management requires decomposing high-level user requests, such as intents, to an abstraction that the system can understand and execute. This is challenging because even a simple intent requires performing a number of ordered steps. And the task of identifying and adapting these steps (as conditions change) requires a decomposition approach that cannot be exactly pre-defined beforehand. To tackle these challenges and support automated intent decomposition and execution, we explore the few-shot capability of Large Language Models (LLMs). We propose a pipeline that progressively decomposes intents by generating the required actions using a policy-based abstraction. This allows us to automate the policy execution by creating a closed control loop for the intent deployment. To do so, we generate and map the policies to APIs and form application management loops that perform the necessary monitoring, analysis, planning and execution. We evaluate our proposal with a use-case to fulfill and assure an application service chain of virtual network functions. Using our approach, we can generalize and generate the necessary steps to realize intents, thereby enabling intent automation for application management.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it