MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Jamming Attacks and Mitigation in Transfer Learning Enabled 5G RAN Slicing

2024· article· en· W4402159228 on OpenAlexaff
Shavbo Salehi, Hao Zhou, Medhat Elsayed, Majid Bavand, Raimundas Gaigalas, Yigit Ozcan, Melike Erol‐Kantarci

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicWireless Signal Modulation Classification
Canadian institutionsEricsson (Canada)University of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRanJammingSlicingComputer scienceTransfer of learningComputer securityComputer networkArtificial intelligenceWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Radio access technology is crucial in both 5G and 6G cellular networks, providing differentiated services that demand reliability, low latency, and high throughput. To meet these requirements, machine learning (ML) has demonstrated considerable progress by facilitating resource allocation. However, these ML techniques can be susceptible to attacks, and the jamming attack is one of the most considered attacks in the literature, disrupting network functionality by sending interference signals. This paper, to the best of our knowledge for the first time, examines the vulnerability of radio access networks (RANs) to jamming attacks on resource allocation of a transfer reinforcement learning (TRL) based system and provides a mitigation approach to such attacks. A system model is presented for RAN slicing, followed by an introduction of the TRL algorithm for resource allocation. Afterward, we investigate covert patterned jamming attack (CPJA) on the TRL algorithm in downlink communication which decreases system throughput by 17% and 38.14% in the expert and learner agents and increases latency by 7.36% and 9.37% respectively. In addition, we propose a neural network (NN) solution to mitigate the CPJA trained on the network side and provide the trained NN model to the users' equipment (UEs) to eliminate interference from the signal by the filter. The trained NN is applied to predict the future activity of the interference generated by the attacker. Attack mitigation reduces the impact of the attack while the system's throughput suffers a 6% and 1.8% degradation, and its latency increases by 6.5% and 3.83% compared to the original system for expert and learner agents, respectively.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicWireless Signal Modulation ClassificationFrench-language works237,207