MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Hybrid Network Slicing Technique for Co-existence of eMBB and URLLC Services in 6G-IoT Systems

2024· article· en· W4405908373 on OpenAlexaff
Bhagawat Adhikari, Ahmed Shaharyar Khwaja, Muhammad Jaseemuddin, Alagan Anpalagan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicIoT and Edge/Fog Computing
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSlicingComputer scienceInternet of ThingsDistributed computingComputer networkEmbedded systemWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

G wireless networks will serve billions of Internet of Thing (IoT) devices with stringent latency and reliability requirements for various applications. Therefore, the three service classes introduced by 5G systems: Enhanced Mobile Broad Band (eMBB), Ultra-Reliable and Low-Latency Communications (URLLC) and massive Machine-Type Communications (mMTC), have to meet stricter requirements in $\mathbf{6 G}$ systems. In this paper, we design a novel hybrid network slicing technique comprised of both orthogonal and non-orthogonal slicing schemes to achieve the optimal sum rates for joint eMBB and URLLC services. With the help of power inversion and Successive Interference Cancellation (SIC) in Non-Orthogonal Multiple Access (NOMA), we allow different combinations of frequency resources for Orthogonal Multiple Access (OMA) and NOMA to design frequency diversity-aided hybrid network slicing, which can accommodate multiple URLLC IoT users in the uplink communication. We perform an extensive numerical investigation to analyze the sum rates of eMBB and URLLC IoT users given average channel gain and reliability requirements for each service class, and show that the proposed hybrid technique outperforms OMA and NOMA in terms of maximum sum rates of both service classes.

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)0.001
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 score0.955
Threshold uncertainty score0.397

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicIoT and Edge/Fog ComputingFrench-language works237,207