Smart Jamming Attack and Mitigation on Deep Transfer Reinforcement Learning Enabled Resource Allocation for Network Slicing
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
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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