Self-Play Ensemble Q-learning enabled Resource Allocation for Network Slicing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 5G networks, network slicing has emerged as a pivotal paradigm to address diverse user demands and service requirements. To meet the requirements, reinforcement learning (RL) algorithms have been utilized widely, but this method has the problem of overestimation and exploration-exploitation trade-offs. To tackle these problems, this paper explores the application of self-play ensemble Q-learning, an extended version of the RL-based technique. Self-play ensemble Q-learning utilizes multiple Q-tables with various exploration-exploitation rates leading to different observations for choosing the most suitable action for each state. Moreover, through self-play, each model endeavors to enhance its performance compared to its previous iterations, boosting system efficiency, and decreasing the effect of overestimation. For performance evaluation, we consider three RL-based algorithms; self-play ensemble Q-learning, double Q-learning, and Q-learning, and compare their performance under different network traffic. Through simulations, we demonstrate the effectiveness of self-play ensemble Q-learning in meeting the diverse demands within 21.92% in latency, 24.22% in throughput, and 23.63% in packet drop rate in comparison with the baseline methods. Furthermore, we evaluate the robustness of self-play ensemble Q-learning and double Q-learning in situations where one of the Q-tables is affected by a malicious user. Our results depicted that the self-play ensemble Q-learning method is more robust against adversarial users and prevents a noticeable drop in system performance, mitigating the impact of users manipulating policies.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".