Hierarchical Decision Mamba Meets Agentic AI: A Novel Approach for RAN Slicing in 6G
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Radio Access Network (RAN) slicing enables multiple logical networks to exist on top of the same physical infrastructure by allocating resources to distinct service groups, where radio resource scheduling plays a key role in ensuring compliance with slice-specific Service-Level Agreements (SLAs). Existing configuration-based or intent-driven Reinforcement Learning (RL) approaches usually rely on static mappings and SLA conversions. The current literature does not integrate natural language understanding with coordinated decision-making. To address these limitations, we propose an Agentic AI framework for 6G RAN slicing, driven by a super agent built using Hierarchical Decision Mamba (HDM) controllers and a Large Language Model (LLM). The super agent interprets operator intents and translates them into actionable goals using the LLM, which are used by HDM to coordinate inter-slice, intra-slice, and self-healing agents. Compared to transformer-based and reward-driven baselines, the proposed Agentic AI framework demonstrates consistent improvements across key performance indicators, including higher throughput, improved cell-edge performance, and reduced latency across different slices.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".