AI-Powered Network Optimization: Application of Artificial Intelligence in Optimizing Network Performance, Including Self-Healing and Self-Optimizing Capabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The development of data traffic and the increasing complexity of telecommunication networksnecessitate a transition from manual to intelligent network management. AI has recently emergedas a disruptive solution for network performance optimization, with the capability to handle largedatasets, detect patterns, and make real-time decisions. This paper considers a range of AIapproaches to network optimization, especially those with self-healing and self-optimizingfeatures. Self-healing networks utilize machine learning algorithms to automatically detect errors,perform root cause analysis, and facilitate fault recovery without human intervention. Thisapproach enhances service availability and reduces operational expenses. Self-optimizingnetworks (SONs), however, dynamically adapt parameters such as bandwidth, power, andhandover thresholds to provide optimal system performance in response to real-time traffic anduser behavior. Incorporating AI practices (such as deep learning, reinforcement learning, andanomaly detection) into the network helps ensure that congestion, latency, and equipment failureare addressed before the problem becomes acute for a subscriber. Illustrative examples from 5Gand future networks demonstrate the performance improvements in quality of service (QoS),resource utilization, and network reliability. However, model interpretability, data privacy, anddeployment scalability still present significant challenges. This paper concludes with strategicinsights for AI-enabled network optimization deployments, discussing the robustness of datapipelines, ethical AI governance, and the benefits of cross-layer data-driven strategies.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".