End-to-End Resource Slicing for Coexistence of eMBB and URLLC Services in 5G-Advanced/6G Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We study the problem of end-to-end (E2E) network slicing, i.e., joint slicing of the radio access network (RAN) and core network (CN), for the coexistence of enhanced mobile broadband (eMBB) and ultra-reliable and low latency communication (URLLC) services in future generation cellular (e.g., 5G-Advanced/6G) networks. The E2E resource slicing problem is defined as a mixed-integer non-linear programming problem to minimize the E2E energy consumption and the cost of utilized resources. To overcome the difficulty of solving this problem, we decompose it into two sub-problems, namely, RAN resource allocation (RRA) and CN resource allocation (CRA) problems. In both RRA and CRA problems, the existence of binary variables makes them intractable. To tackle this difficulty, we relax the binary variables by introducing penalty functions. Then, we make the RRA and CRA problems convex by employing the majorization-minimization approximation method. Via simulation results, we compare our proposed joint RAN and CN resource allocation algorithm (JRCRA) with the disjoint solution where RAN and CN resources are allocated to users separately. The joint allocation of resources in the RAN and CN has the advantage that the E2E tolerable latency of users can be flexibly divided between RAN and CN. In contrast, if resources in RAN and CN are allocated separately, a predefined part of the E2E tolerable latency should be considered as the tolerable latency in RAN and CN. The simulation results illustrate that our proposed JRCRA algorithm obtains a 34% improvement in energy consumption and a 24% improvement in cost compared to the disjoint one. Moreover, via simulation results, we illustrate that in comparison with existing algorithms, our proposed JRCRA obtains a higher performance. Besides, simulation results confirm that JRCRA reaches a close performance to the optimal solution.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 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 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".