Smart Jamming Attack and Mitigation on Deep Transfer Reinforcement Learning Enabled Resource Allocation for Network Slicing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Network slicing is a pivotal paradigm in wireless networks enabling customized services to users and applications. Yet, intelligent jamming attacks threaten the performance of network slicing. In this paper, we focus on the security aspect of network slicing over a deep transfer reinforcement learning (DTRL) enabled scenario. We first demonstrate how a deep reinforcement learning (DRL)-enabled jamming attack exposes potential risks. In particular, the attacker can intelligently jam resource blocks (RBs) reserved for slices by monitoring transmission signals and perturbing the assigned resources. Then, we propose a DRL-driven mitigation model to mitigate the intelligent attacker. Specifically, the defense mechanism generates interference on unallocated RBs where another antenna is used for transmitting powerful signals. This causes the jammer to consider these RBs as allocated RBs and generate interference for those instead of the allocated RBs. The analysis revealed that the intelligent DRL-enabled jamming attack caused a significant 50% degradation in network throughput and 60% increase in latency in comparison with the no-attack scenario. However, with the implemented mitigation measures, we observed 80% improvement in network throughput and 70% reduction in latency in comparison to the under-attack scenario.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".