Closing the Responsibility Gap in AI-based Network Management: An Intelligent Audit System Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Existing network paradigms have achieved lower downtime as well as a higher Quality of Experience (QoE) through the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based network management tools. These AI management systems, allow for automatic responses to changes in network conditions, lowering operation costs for operators, and improving overall performance. While adopting AI-based management tools enhance the overall network performance, it also introduce challenges such as removing human supervision, privacy violations, algorithmic bias, and model inaccuracies. Furthermore, AI-based agents that fail to address these challenges should be culpable themselves rather than the network as a whole. To address this accountability gap, a framework consisting of a Deep Reinforcement Learning (DRL) model and a Machine Learning (ML) model is proposed to identify and assign numerical values of responsibility to the AI-based management agents involved in any decision-making regarding the network conditions, which eventually affects the end-user. A simulation environment was created for the framework to be trained using simulated network operation parameters. The DRL model had a 96% accuracy during testing for identifying the AI-based management agents, while the ML model using gradient descent learned the network conditions at an 83% accuracy during testing.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".