MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Extended Reality (XR) Codec Adaptation in 5G using Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning with Attention Action Selection

2024· article· en· W4405975368 on OpenAlexafffund
Pedro Enrique Iturria-Rivera, Raimundas Gaigalas, Medhat Elsayed, Majid Bavand, Yigit Ozcan, Melike Erol‐Kantarci

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImage and Video Quality Assessment
Canadian institutionsEricsson (Canada)University of Ottawa
FundersMitacsCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsComputer scienceAdaptation (eye)Reinforcement learningCodecAction selectionSelection (genetic algorithm)Action (physics)Human–computer interactionArtificial intelligencePsychologyTelecommunicationsNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Extended Reality (XR) services will revolutionize applications over $5^{\text {th }}$ and $\mathbf{6}^{\text {th }}$ generation wireless networks by providing seamless virtual and augmented reality experiences. These applications impose significant challenges on network infrastructure, which can be addressed by machine learning algorithms due to their adaptability. This paper presents a Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning (MARL) solution for optimizing codec parameters of XR traffic, comparing it to the Adjust Packet Size (APS) algorithm. Our cooperative multi-agent system uses an Optimistic Mixture of Q-Values ($\mathbf{O Q M I X}$) approach for handling Cloud Gaming (CG), Augmented Reality (AR), and Virtual Reality (VR) traffic. Enhancements include an attention mechanism and slate-Markov Decision Process (MDP) for improved action selection. Simulations show our solution outperforms APS with average gains of $30.1 \%, 15.6 \%, 16.5 \% 50.3 \%$ in XR index, jitter, delay, and Packet Loss Ratio (PLR), respectively. APS tends to increase throughput but also packet losses, whereas oQMIX reduces PLR, delay, and jitter while maintaining goodput.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.903
Threshold uncertainty score0.470

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.141
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicImage and Video Quality AssessmentFrench-language works237,207