Toward Intelligent Intent-Based Network Slicing for IoT Systems: Enabling Technologies, Challenges, and Vision
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The rapid integration of intelligence and automation into future Internet of Things (IoT) systems, empowered by Intent-based Networking (IBN) and Network Slicing (NS) technologies, is transforming the way novel services are envisioned and delivered. The automation capabilities of IBN depend significantly on key facilitators, including data management and resource management. A robust data management methodology is essential for leveraging large-scale data, encompassing service-specific and network-specific data, enabling IBN systems to extract insights and facilitate real-time decision-making. Another critical enabler involves deploying intent-based mechanisms within an NS system that translate and ensure user intents by mapping them to precise Management and Orchestration (MO) commands. Nevertheless, data management in IoT systems faces significant security and operational challenges due to the diverse range of services and technologies involved. Furthermore, intent-based resource management demands intelligent proactive, and adaptive MO mechanisms that can fulfill a wide range of intent requirements. Existing surveys within the field have focused on technology-specific advancements, often overlooking these challenges. In response, this paper defines Intelligent Intent-Based Network Slicing (I-IBNS) systems exemplifying the integration of intelligent IBN and NS for the MO of IoT systems. Furthermore, the paper surveys I-IBNS systems, focusing on two critical domains: resource management and data management. The resource management segment examines recent developments in IBN mechanisms within an NS system. Meanwhile, the second segment explores data management complexities within IoT networks. Moreover, the paper envisions the roles of intent, NS, and the IoT ecosystem, thereby laying the foundation for future research directions.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".