MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

End-to-End Requirements Mapping for Cloud-Native Applications Using ML Models

2025· article· en· W6903344804 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware-Defined Networks and 5G
Canadian institutionsEricsson (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComponent (thermodynamics)Cloud computingSoftware deploymentMicroservicesReliability (semiconductor)Artificial neural networkKey (lock)Virtual networkPerformance indicator

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the rapidly evolving landscape of 5G and emerging 6G networks, ensuring cloud-based applications meet stringent performance and reliability requirements is critical to maintaining a competitive edge and satisfying user demands. These applications are typically composed of interconnected components, such as Virtual Network Functions (VNFs) or microservices, each contributing to the application's overall performance. However, configuring individual VNFs or microservices to meet specific end-to-end requirements—such as latency and throughput—poses a significant challenge. Current methods often rely on manual configurations, which can lead to inefficiencies and suboptimal resource use in dynamic cloud environments. In this paper, we introduce a machine learning-based solution to automate the mapping of end-to-end requirements into individual KPI requirements for each component (e.g., VNF) in the service graph. Using Deep Neural Networks (DNN) and Graph Neural Networks (GNN), our solution learns from diverse deployment scenarios and end-to-end application requirements, enabling accurate prediction of the KPIs needed for each component to support overall performance goals. This approach ensures that all components are precisely configured to meet end-to-end requirements without extensive manual tuning. Our evaluation on two distinct applications demonstrates high accuracy in predictions, achieving up to 98.99% accuracy during training and up to 96.67% in inferencing, surpassing the accuracy of expert-configured setups.

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)0.000
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.811
Threshold uncertainty score0.461

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSoftware-Defined Networks and 5GFrench-language works237,207