MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7116757021 · doi:10.1109/access.2025.3646975

A Bi-Objective Policy for Resilient and Sustainable SFC Management in Telco-Cloud Environments

2025· article· en· W7116757021 on OpenAlexafffund
Muhammad Hamza Shahab, Yogesh Sharma, Auday Al-Dulaimy

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Access · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware-Defined Networks and 5G
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsRedundancy (engineering)Fault toleranceEnergy consumptionIT service continuityHigh availabilityCarbon footprintVirtual networkResource consumptionServer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Achieving high availability in Service Function Chains (SFCs) typically requires deploying redundant Virtual Network Function (VNF) instances. However, this redundancy increases resource usage and energy consumption, raising the carbon footprint of the service. Reducing redundancy lowers the energy consumption but impacts the service availability during failures, creating a critical trade-off between service availability and sustainability. To address this, a novel bi-objective policy is introduced that leverages a Tradeoff Aware Embedding (TAE) algorithm using greedy approach for resource provisioning, and a PSO-based Redundancy Optimizer (PRO) that dynamically adjusts VNF redundancy to meet service availability requirements without increasing the carbon footprint. To further enhance the fault tolerance, the policy integrates a Gradient-Boosting (GB) enabled failure prediction and remediation mechanism called Redundancy with Checkpointing (RPC), enabling proactive failure detection and rapid recovery. Simulation results using real-world failure traces demonstrated that the proposed policy with RPC achieved up to 99.987% availability while reducing the carbon footprint of the service by over 87% and service failures by more than 98% compared to the worst-case without redundancy and checkpointing mechanisms.

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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.901
Threshold uncertainty score0.505

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 science0.0010.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.282 · 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
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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