MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

5G E2E Network Slicing Predictable Traffic Generator

2023· article· en· W4389077385 on OpenAlexaffabout
Brigitte Jaumard, Junior Momo Ziazet

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware-Defined Networks and 5G
Canadian institutionsConcordia UniversityArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)Ericsson (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSlicingTraffic generation modelTraffic classificationCode refactoringGenerator (circuit theory)Floating car dataDistributed computingNetwork traffic simulationResource (disambiguation)Traffic shapingData modelingData miningMachine learningNetwork traffic controlArtificial intelligenceReal-time computingComputer networkDatabaseQuality of serviceSoftwareEngineeringTransport engineeringWorld Wide WebOperating systemTraffic congestion

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Automated resource management for 5G network slicing implies the need to assign each slice the necessary resources, i.e., the ability to predict their respective requests and resource requirements. Machine learning models and algorithms can meet these needs provided the required data is available. Unfortunately, 5G traffic data remains sparse despite many studies relying on machine learning models and algorithms for traffic forecasting or automated network resource management. In this study, we introduce a 5G-type predictable traffic generator that relies on the refactoring of open data of vehicle and pedestrian traffic from the City of Montreal. Indeed, the latter data is refactored in order to generate different classes of network traffic, with different characteristics associated with typical 5G applications, and then with different traffic patterns and peak hours. The result is a valuable traffic generation tool for researchers interested in validating machine learning algorithms aimed at, for example, traffic forecasting, resource elasticity, or automated scaling of slice resources.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.729
Threshold uncertainty score0.688

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.203 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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