Inter-Slice Resource Allocation in Next-Generation
Wireless Networks: Distributed Q-Learning
Approach
Mostafa Naseri, Hojjat Navidan, Ingrid Moerman, Eli De Poorter, and Adnan Shahid
IDLab, Department of Information Technology at Ghent University - imec, Ghent, Belgium
{firstname.lastname}@ugent.be
Abstract—As we embrace the new era of mobile networks,
a pressing need for dynamic, intelligent resource allocation has
emerged, particularly capable of adapting to diverse network
conditions. This study presents a novel distributed Q-learning ap-
proach for inter-slice physical resource blocks (PRBs) allocation,
emphasizing the significance of collaborative learning through
information exchange among different cells. This distributed ap-
proach enables the model to effectively manage traffic scenarios
not experienced during training. The proposed approach strives
to optimize PRB utilization and ensures a balanced resource dis-
tribution among slices while upholding service level agreements
(SLAs) consistently. Our collaborative learning approach proves
its efficacy by preventing unacceptable SLA violations, which
occurred in 4% and 8% of the cases in unseen traffic scenarios for
cells learning in isolation. These findings accentuate the potential
of shared learning in advancing resource management strategies
for future mobile networks, particularly in tackling unforeseen
situations effectively.
Index Terms—Distributed Learning, Reinforcement Learning,
Q-Learning, Service Level Agreement, Inter-Slice Resource Al-
location
I. I NTRODUCTION
The exponential growth in mobile data traffic coupled with
emerging applications and services place exceptional demands
on the mobile network infrastructure. The ubiquity of smart
devices and the Internet of Things (IoT) requires future mobile
networks to deliver ultra-reliable low-latency communication
(URLLC), enhanced mobile broadband (eMBB), and massive
machine-type communications (mMTC) [1]. This diverse de-
mand landscape necessitates an evolution beyond conventional
resource allocation strategies, compelling a shift towards more
intelligent, adaptable, and efficient methodologies. Traditional
methods, which often rely on precise mathematical models and
centralized execution, struggle to accommodate the complexity
and variation inherent in these multifaceted requirements. The
mathematical modelling of such problems for a closed-form
solution proves impracticable due to the diverse and dynamic
nature of network demands. Furthermore, centralized exe-
cution of these traditional approaches introduces formidable
computational complexity, resulting in scalability issues as
This work was executed within the imec.ICON 5GECO project, a research
project bringing together academic research partners and industry partners.
The 5GECO project was co-financed by imec and received support from
Flanders Innovation Entrepreneurship (project nr. HBC.2021.0673).
network size and complexity grow. Given these constraints,
reinforcement learning (RL), specifically Q-learning, emerges
as a promising solution for effective resource management in
the anticipated mobile network traffic scenarios [2] [3].
A. Efficiency Imperative of Resource Allocation in Future
Mobile Networks
Efficient resource allocation, especially in the context of
Physical Resource Block (PRB) allocation, serves as a piv-
otal performance metric in the evolving landscape of mobile
networks. This core element of inter-slice management has
garnered notable academic attention due to its consequential
role in the effectiveness of network operations [4].
In the scope of network slicing, various virtual networks
are instantiated on a shared physical infrastructure, each ac-
commodating a wide array of use cases, service types, and
performance needs. It is critical to judiciously allocate PRBs
among these slices, to meet service level agreement (SLA)
requirements while ensuring optimal resource utilization. This
dual-objective poses a complex problem as it necessitates
addressing conflicting goals simultaneously [5].
Potential issues arising from ineffective PRB allocation
include resource wastage, subpar network performance, SLA
violations, and service quality degradation [6]. Adding to this
complexity, the scalability and adaptability of mobile networks
demand flexible allocation mechanisms to respond to evolv-
ing service demands. Thus, it’s imperative for future mobile
networks to develop proficient resource allocation strategies
that balance diverse requirements and limited resources effec-
tively. Consequently, this area warrants further research and
development to optimize network efficiency.
B. Q-Learning in Mobile Networks
Q-learning, an off-policy RL algorithm, has emerged as a
potent tool in the realm of resource allocation, predominantly
due to its ability to learn and optimize policies over time
based on interactions with its environment [1]. This RL
algorithm presents a promising solution to effectively manage
resources without the need for complete knowledge of the
network dynamics. This section explores the role and potential
advantages of Q-Learning in future mobile networks’ resource
allocation, focusing on its simplicity, adaptability, and capacity
for continuous improvement. Despite the significant promise
of Q-learning, several challenges impede its adoption in real-
world mobile networks, including the exploration-exploitation
trade-off, the curse of dimensionality, and the sensitivity to
hyperparameters. Conversely, several factors provide unique
opportunities for its implementation, including the increasingly
dynamic network environments, the development of more
sophisticated learning algorithms, and the growing computa-
tional capacities of mobile devices and network infrastructure.
Among other works, [7] and [8] present innovative ap-
proaches to resource management in network slicing. The
former introduces an LSTM-A2C algorithm that leverages
deep reinforcement learning to efficiently allocate resources
across network slices, taking into account user mobility. The
latter proposes a hierarchical resource management framework
that uses deep reinforcement learning for admission control
and resource adjustment in a dynamic and uncertain environ-
ment, demonstrating the effectiveness of AI-based customized
slicing. However, both studies do not address the challenge of
unseen traffic scenarios. In contrast, our research specifically
focuses on these unseen traffic scenarios, evaluating the inter-
slice resource management using traffic scenarios not seen
during the training of one specific Q-learning agent.
This work aims to address the challenge of efficient resource
allocation in 5G and beyond network slicing. We introduce
a Q-learning-based approach that leverages network KPIs to
formulate rewards, thereby aligning resource allocation more
closely with the requirements of the different network slices
formulating in action-state spaces. Furthermore, we explore
the concept of information exchange via Q-table sharing
across network cells, demonstrating its potential to enhance
performance, particularly in cells with limited exposure to high
traffic scenarios during training.
II. S YSTEM M ODEL AND P ROPOSED M ETHOD
A. System Model
The system model utilized in this study is based on a
network composed of mobile cells, each featuring two slices -
eMBB and URLLC. This setting is representative of advanced
mobile networks, thus offering an appropriate context for
exploring resource allocation strategies. Each slice accommo-
dates two user equipments (UEs). The simulator employed in
this study operates on a bandwidth of 200 MHz, reflecting
the high-frequency characteristics of 5G and beyond mobile
networks. Inter-slice resource allocation is governed by our
proposed Q-learning agent, which optimally distributes phys-
ical resource blocks (PRBs) among the slices in each cell.
Within the individual slices, resource allocation to UEs is
managed by a Round-Robin (RR) scheduler. This scheduler
allocates PRBs, as determined by the inter-slice scheduler,
among the UEs within each slice. It should be noted that
the packet arrival rate of each UE varies randomly during
both the training and testing phases. This stochastic nature
of traffic mimics real-world network conditions, contributing
to the robustness of our study and the practical applicability of
our findings. Given a set of states S representing the different
conditions of the network, a set of actions A that the agent can
take, i.e., different ways to allocate resources among slices, a
state transition probability P (s′ |s, a) defining the probability
of transitioning from current state s to next state s′ given action
a, and a reward function r(s, a, s′ ) providing the immediate
reward for performing action a in state s and moving to state
s′ , we want to find an optimal policy π ∗ that maximizes the
expected cumulative reward over time, defined as [9]:
" #
∗
X
t ′
π = arg max E γ · r(st , at , st )|π (1)
π
t
where π is a policy dictating what action to take in each
state, γ is the discount factor controlling the importance of
future rewards, and t indexes over time steps.
The SLA satisfaction can be integrated into the reward
function, where actions leading to higher SLA satisfaction
give higher rewards. This formulation allows us to utilize
Q-learning to solve the optimization problem, by iteratively
updating the Q-values for state-action pairs and progressively
refining the policy towards the optimal one [10].
B. Conceptual Framework
This subsection presents an explanation of the proposed Q-
table based reinforcement learning algorithm for inter-slice
resource allocation, encompassing three major components:
the digitized KPI states, actions, and the reward function.
Digitized States (s): The states represent the crucial per-
formance metrics of the mobile network slices, which are
discretized to facilitate the learning process and match the
discrete nature of tabular Q-learning. In the proposed system,
the key performance indicators (KPI) signify vital metrics
characterizing the performance of the mobile network. These
KPIs include the number of waiting packets in the buffer
and the throughput (both per UE and per network slice). The
process of discretization involves mapping these continuous
KPIs into a finite set of discrete levels, aiding the reinforce-
ment learning process by converting the problem into a more
manageable state space. Each KPI is digitized into one of
the N predefined levels, enabling the Q-learning algorithm to
handle the complex dynamics of the mobile network efficiently
and effectively. Moreover, we use an additional KPI indicating
the proximity to an illegal number of PRBs, i.e., a state where
the number of PRBs requested exceeds the total available
PRBs or falls below the minimum per slice.
Action (a): Actions constitute the different resource alloca-
tion strategies that the RL agent can employ in each state. The
actions in our system correspond to the manipulation of PRBs
within each slice. Each action comprises either taking, giving,
or maintaining the current number of PRBs in a slice.
Specifically, we consider three possible actions per slice:
-4, 0, and 4. A negative action signifies taking PRBs from
a slice, while a positive action denotes allocating additional
PRBs to a slice. Action 0 corresponds to not altering the
current allocation of PRBs for the slice. As a result, the action
space a is represented by a vector of length Nslc where Nslc
is the number of slices and A is the set of all possible actions.
 Piecewise Reward Function (r): The reward function guides
the RL agent’s learning, providing feedback based on the
network performance resulting from the actions taken. Prior
to defining the total reward r, we define slice-specific reward
rs based on the specific requirements of each slice. In this
work, we use throughput as the slice reward for eMBB and
buffer occupancy for URLLC. Buffer occupancy is used in
the slice reward for URLLC due to its critical role in ensuring
low latency and high reliability, key requirements for URLLC
applications. High buffer occupancy can increase latency and
decrease reliability, making it an essential metric to monitor
and optimize in URLLC scenarios [11]. We also normalize
slice reward to the [0, 2] range such that rs = 1 is the threshold
of SLA satisfaction for that slice, sr < 1 is the SLA violation
range, and sr > 1 is the SLA satisfaction range. The total
reward is constructed as a piecewise function to reflect the
different priorities and implications of various KPI levels.
The reward function is designed as a piecewise function
with different ranges and gradient terms to represent the vary-
ing priorities and implications of different network conditions.
Specifically, the reward function considers factors such as rs
and PRB utilization (u). u has a value in [0, 1] for each slice
and reports what ratio of allocated PRBs are assigned to UEs
in each slice.
 min(a)
−11 + max(max(A))


if Flag = 1
−11 − max(Assigned PRB)


 NP RBs else if Flag = 2

r = −10 + 0.5 min(rs ) P else if min(rs ) < 1.25
Nslc


−10 + 2 min(u) + 8 i=1
u[i]
else if min(rs ) < 1.75
 Nslc


 P Nslc u[i]
70 min(u) + 30 i=1 else

Nslc
(2)
Flag=1 denotes when the proposed action violates the
minimum number of required PRBs for one of the slices. In
this situation, the reward function penalizes the system but
provides a small positive gradient based on the normalized
minimum number of assigned PRBs.
In the second condition (Flag=2), the reward discourages
the system from getting close to an illegal PRB state, with a
penalty that increases with the maximum number of assigned
PRBs in order to avoid using more PRBs when we are close
to demanding more PRBs than available.
In the third condition (min(rs ) < 1.25), the reward function
incentivizes the system to enhance the performance of the slice
with the poorest performance. It is important to note that we
introduce a 25% buffer when responding to SLA violations
compared to the actual SLA violation threshold. In the fourth
condition (min(rs ) < 1.75), the system slightly encourages
efficiency. When min(rs ) > 1.75, the reward function for
improving PRB utilization in the slice with the poorest u
consists of two terms: the minimum utilization and average
utilization, Eq. 2. This dual-term reward enables the system to
enhance the efficiency of other slices even when improving the
slice with the lowest performance is not feasible, preventing
the agent from becoming stagnant.
C. Simulation Environment and Implementation Details
This section elucidates the simulation environment utilized
to test and validate the proposed method.
Cell Capacity Simulator: In this work we use Py5cheSim
cell capacity simulator [12]. The simulator serves as a virtual
environment to mimic the operation of a mobile network,
generating essential network parameters like throughput and
the number of packets in the buffer. For the testing and
validation of the proposed Q-learning approach, we have mod-
ified Py5cheSim to support different traffic scenarios along
with user-defined inter-slice resource allocation algorithms.
This simulator was chosen due to its unique capabilities and
flexibility in simulating network slicing at the access network
level, a pivotal feature for our proposed method.
A key aspect of Py5cheSim is its ability to support dynamic
inter-slice PRB allocation. This capability allows the PRBs
allocated to different slices to change dynamically according
to the decisions made by the inter-slice scheduler, thereby
closely mimicking the real-world operations of a 5G network.
Additionally, this dynamic allocation can be configured with
variable time granularity, providing further flexibility to align
the simulation environment with the specific requirements and
conditions of the study.
Implementation Details: The implementation of the Q-
learning algorithm involves several critical steps, including the
initialization of the Q-table, the decay of the exploration factor
ϵ, and the update of Q-values after each action. Q-values,
stored in a Q-table with dimensions aligned to digitized state
and action spaces, serve as estimates of the expected cumu-
lative rewards an agent can achieve by executing particular
actions in various states.
To balance the exploration of unvisited state-action pairs
and the exploitation of current knowledge, we use an ϵ-greedy
strategy, where ϵ represents the probability of the agent taking
a random action. Initially, epsilon is set to 1, encouraging
maximum exploration. As the agent gains more knowledge
about the environment, epsilon decays at a rate of 0.999 after
each episode, thereby gradually increasing the emphasis on
exploiting the learned values.
The Q-values are updated after each action according to
the observed state s and received reward r. This update is
performed based on the Q-learning update rule, [3]:
Q(st , at ) = Q(st , at )+α[rt+1 +γ max Q(st+1 , a)−Q(st , at )]
a
In this equation, Q(st , at ) is the current Q-value of taking
action at in state st , rt+1 is the received reward after per-
forming the action, α is the learning rate, γ is the discount
factor representing the importance of future rewards, and
maxa Q(st+1 , a) is the maximum Q-value attainable in the
next state st+1 . This rule allows the agent to iteratively
refine its Q-values, effectively guiding it towards actions that
maximize the cumulative future reward.
D. Intra-Slice Resource Allocation
We utilize a RR scheduler for intra-slice resource allocation.
This ensures a fair allocation strategy, sequentially assigning
resources to users ensuring a balanced distribution. The count
of available resources for each slice, managed by the inter-slice
resource allocation algorithm, serves as an input to the RR
scheduler. This hierarchical approach fosters efficient and eq-
uitable resource allocation, meeting diverse user requirements
within the slice.
Algorithm 1 Inter-slice Resource Allocation with Information
Exchange
Require: Initial Q-tables for all cells
1: for each episode do
2: for each time step within episode do
3: for each cell do
4: Choose action according to policy derived from
Q-table
5: Execute action, observe new state and reward
6: Update Q-table using observed reward and new
state
7: end for
8: if time step % 10 = 0 then
9: Share Q-tables among cells
10: Each cell averages received Q-tables and update
its own
11: end if
12: end for
13: end for
Ensure: Refined Q-tables for all cells
III. P ERFORMANCE E VALUATION
A. Evaluation Metrics and Methods
This section presents the evaluation metrics and their signif-
icance in assessing the performance of the proposed approach.
Fig. 1 provides a visual representation of the agent’s learning
progression. It can be observed that convergence is achieved
after approximately 3000 episodes. The training process for
the agent was conducted with a learning rate (α) set at 0.1
and a discount factor (γ) of 0.05, highlighting the effective-
ness of these parameters in facilitating efficient learning and
convergence. Our simulation unfolds over episodes lasting six
seconds each, with both the measurement interval and the
action granularity set at 10 ms. Adopting an online training
approach, we promptly update the Q-values following each
action. In the scope of this study, we primarily focus on buffer
occupancy, throughput, and PRB utilization as KPIs. We have
elected throughput as a paramount metric for eMBB slices due
to their emphasis on high data rates. Conversely, for URLLC
slices, we primarily consider buffer occupancy as the crucial
KPI, owing to the importance of ultra-reliable and low-latency
communication in their associated applications.
We benchmark our Q-learning-based inter-slice resource
allocation agent against the widely used RR scheduler, noted
for its fairness and simplicity similar to [13]. To validate our
approach, we generate varied traffic conditions using random
packet arrivals, controlled by a packet arrival rate. Replication
of our results is enabled by providing the same seed values
used in our experiments. We ensure robustness by evaluating
our agent under low and high network traffic load scenarios,
mimicking a range of real-world network conditions.
Fig. 1: Training progression of the Q-learning agent: The
figure depicts the average reward per episode and the cor-
responding exponential moving average. The varying back-
ground color illustrates the changing value of the exploitation
probability at different stages of the learning process. β is a
parameter that controls the weight given to the past values.
B. Comparison between Q-Learning and RR Inter-Slice
Schedulers
This section includes graphical representations and discus-
sion on the performance comparison between the proposed
learning scheduler and the RR inter-slice scheduler, demon-
strating the PRBs saving capability of the learning scheduler.
Fig. 2 presents the empirical cumulative distribution func-
tion (CDF) of the percentage of unallocated PRBs for both
RR and our proposed Q-learning method, under high and
low traffic loads. The RR curve consistently resides above
the Q-learning curves, implying a lower percentage of unallo-
cated PRBs. Notably, as network traffic escalates, Q-learning
exhibits increased resource utilization to maintain optimal
network performance. This illustrates the adaptive nature of
our Q-learning approach, adjusting resource allocation dynam-
ically according to network conditions.
C. Satisfaction of SLAs
In this study, we designed our reward structure, as described
by (2), to prioritize the SLA satisfaction for each slice. The
individual slice reward, rs , is calculated based on the KPIs
pertinent to that slice. Here, we employ a sigmoid function
to normalize KPIs into a range of [0, 2], wherein an rs
value equal to or greater than 1 indicates the satisfaction
of SLA for a given slice. The sigmoid function is defined

Fig. 2: This figure displays the empirical CDF of the percent-
age of unallocated PRBs in both high and low-traffic scenarios.
The RR curve resides above the Q-learning curves, signifying
fewer unallocated PRBs in comparison.
1
as σ(x; a, b) = 1+e−(x−b)/a where a represents the shape
parameter controlling the steepness of the sigmoid curve, and
b represents the position parameter determining the horizontal
shift of the curve.
The design of our piecewise reward function significantly
guides the agent’s behavior. A large inter-range gap incen-
tivizes the agent to transition between ranges, while potentially
neglecting optimization within the current range. Conversely, a
small inter-range gap may lead to the agent focusing more on
intra-range optimization, potentially at the expense of moving
to more beneficial ranges.
Similarly, the intra-range amplitude, the variation in reward
within a single range, affects the agent’s behavior. A larger
amplitude encourages the agent to optimize its actions within
the current range, while a smaller amplitude might motivate
the agent to transition to other ranges, sometimes at the cost
of optimal performance within the current range.
In essence, careful tuning of the reward function’s properties
is required to ensure a balance between intra- and inter-
range optimization, thereby guiding the agent to the most
advantageous behaviors. As illustrated in Fig. 3, under low-
traffic conditions, both methods effectively allocate resources,
with Q-learning demonstrating an edge in PRB utilization
efficiency.
As traffic load increases, the advantages of Q-learning
become more pronounced. While the RR approach allocates
resources in a static and cyclical pattern, regardless of the
traffic load, Q-learning adapts to the higher demand by
dynamically allocating PRBs. It reduces the percentage of
unallocated PRBs, making better use of available resources to
maintain network performance under pressure. This robustness
to varying traffic loads suggests the suitability of Q-learning
in dynamic and diverse network environments, underlining
its potential for optimizing resource allocation in advanced
mobile networks.
(a) Slice reward for low traffic load
(b) Slice reward for high traffic load
Fig. 3: Empirical cumulative distribution functions (eCDFs)
for slice rewards of eMBB and URLLC under Q-learning and
RR scheduling algorithms. The vertical line at slice reward =
1 represents the SLA satisfaction threshold. The eCDFs are
calculated using 60 thousand measurements in 30 episodes.
IV. Q- TABLE S HARING
A. Significance and Mechanism of Q-table Sharing
The value of information sharing during the learning phase
is illustrated in this section. Specifically, we consider a setting
wherein multiple cells, namely Cell 2 through Cell 5, engage in
a periodic exchange of Q-tables while training. The global Q-
table is constructed using an averaging approach, incorporating
information from all contributing cells [14].
Conversely, Cell 1 is deployed as a control cell that pursues
Q-learning in isolation, without any interaction with the shared
global model. This design provides a basis for comparing the
effectiveness of information sharing versus individual learning.
Throughout the training phase, only Cell 5 experiences high
traffic conditions. Upon completion of the training, we assess
the performance of the Q-learning agents across unseen high-
load traffic scenarios.
Compared to centralized PRB allocation, Q-table sharing
reduces communication overhead as it is periodically updated.
Moreover, this decentralized method avoids the computational
complexity of calculating PRB allocations globally in a cen-
tralized manner, offering a more scalable and practical solution
for large network environments.
 Fig. 4 offers a vivid illustration of the advantages conferred
by Q-table sharing. While the SLAs are violated approxi-
mately 4% and 8% of the time for eMBB and URLLC slices
respectively in Cell 1, the cell devoid of any information
sharing, a remarkable improvement is observed in the case
of Cell 2 which participates in Q-table exchange despite not
encountering high traffic during training. Thus, the benefits of
collaborative learning and information sharing in efficiently
managing network resources under diverse load conditions are
underscored.
Fig. 4: Empirical CDF of slice rewards for eMBB and URLLC
in Cell 1 (isolated learning) and Cell 2 (part of distributed
learning). The figure underscores the impact of information
sharing, revealing that Cell 1 experiences SLA violations
in 4% and 8% of the cases for eMBB and URLLC slices,
respectively, highlighting the enhanced performance achieved
through distributed learning.
V. C ONCLUSION
In this research, we have underscored the potential of
Q-learning for inter-slice resource management in emerging
wireless networks, particularly focusing on cross-cell Q-table
exchange. Our analysis shows how this shared learning tech-
nique can improve network performance under high-traffic
conditions, even when individual cells have not been exposed
to such scenarios during the training.
The value of such information sharing holds significant
implications for future mobile networks, demonstrating the
potential to enhance resource utilization and uphold Service
Level Agreements under diverse network conditions. We an-
ticipate that these insights will prompt further exploration
in leveraging advanced reinforcement learning techniques,
and particularly shared learning mechanisms, in the field of
wireless networking. Ultimately, our research underscores the
pivotal role of shared intelligence in shaping the future of
efficient and adaptive mobile network management.
Potential future works could explore an assortment of
advanced reinforcement learning techniques, such as deep
reinforcement learning or multi-agent reinforcement learning,
to address more complex and realistic network scenarios.
Additionally, efficient ways of encoding and sharing of Q-
tables to further reduce the overhead of information exchange
could be investigated. Further research may also examine the
possibility of integrating the proposed mechanism with net-
work slicing orchestration strategies in real-time, incorporating
varying traffic patterns and user mobility. Lastly, considering
the stochastic nature of wireless networks, future work could
also look into the application of online learning algorithms for
robust and adaptive resource management.
R EFERENCES
[1] P. Wei, K. Guo, Y. Li, J. Wang, W. Feng, S. Jin, N. Ge, and Y.-C. Liang,
“Reinforcement Learning-Empowered Mobile Edge Computing for 6G
Edge Intelligence,” IEEE Access, vol. 10, pp. 65156–65192, 2022.
[2] Bei Yang, Yiqian Xu, Xiaoming She, Jianchi Zhu, Fengsheng Wei,
Peng Cheri, and Jianxiu Wang, “Reinforcement Learning Based Dynamic
Resource Allocation for Massive MTC in Sliced Mobile Networks,”
in 2022 IEEE 14th International Conference on Advanced Infocomm
Technology (ICAIT), pp. 298–303, 2022.
[3] Yi Shi, Yalin E. Sagduyu, and Tugba Erpek, “Reinforcement Learning for
Dynamic Resource Optimization in 5G Radio Access Network Slicing,”
in 2020 IEEE 25th International Workshop on Computer Aided Modeling
and Design of Communication Links and Networks (CAMAD), pp. 1–6,
2020, doi: 10.1109/CAMAD50429.2020.9209299.
[4] Fadoua Debbabi, Rihab Jmal, Lamia Chaari Fourati, and Rui Luis
Aguiar, “An Overview of Interslice and Intraslice Resource Allocation
in B5G Telecommunication Networks,” IEEE Transactions on Network
and Service Management, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 5120–5132, 2022.
[5] Joao Francisco Nunes Pinheiro, Chia-Yu Chang, Tom Collins, Eric
Smekens, Revaz Berozashvili, Adnan Shahid, Danny De Vleeschauwer,
Paola Soto, Ingrid Moerman, Johann Marquez-Barja, Jens Buysse, and
Miguel Camelo, “5GECO: A Cross-domain Intelligent Neutral Host
Architecture for 5G and Beyond,” in INFOCOM 2023 NG-OPERA: Next-
generation Open and Programmable Radio Access Networks, pp. 1–6,
New York, NY, USA, 2023.
[6] Xuezhi Zeng, Saurabh Garg, Mutaz Barika, Sanat Bista, Deepak Puthal,
Albert Y. Zomaya, and Rajiv Ranjan, “Detection of SLA Violation for Big
Data Analytics Applications in Cloud,” IEEE Transactions on Computers,
vol. 70, no. 5, pp. 746–758, 2021.
[7] Rongpeng Li, Chujie Wang, Zhifeng Zhao, Rongbin Guo, and Honggang
Zhang, “The LSTM-Based Advantage Actor-Critic Learning for Resource
Management in Network Slicing With User Mobility,” IEEE Communi-
cations Letters, vol. 24, no. 9, pp. 2005–2009, 2020.
[8] Wanqing Guan, Haijun Zhang, and Victor C. M. Leung, “Customized
Slicing for 6G: Enforcing Artificial Intelligence on Resource Manage-
ment,” IEEE Network, vol. 35, no. 5, pp. 264–271, 2021.
[9] Yuxiu Hua, Rongpeng Li, Zhifeng Zhao, Xianfu Chen, and Honggang
Zhang, “GAN-Powered Deep Distributional Reinforcement Learning for
Resource Management in Network Slicing,” IEEE Journal on Selected
Areas in Communications, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 334–349, 2020.
[10] Xiaolan Liu, Jiadong Yu, Zhiyong Feng, and Yue Gao, “Multi-agent
reinforcement learning for resource allocation in IoT networks with edge
computing,” China Communications, vol. 17, no. 9, pp. 220–236, 2020.
[11] Ali A. Esswie, Klaus I. Pedersen, and Preben E. Mogensen, “Semi-
Static Radio Frame Configuration for URLLC Deployments in 5G Macro
TDD Networks,” in 2020 IEEE Wireless Communications and Networking
Conference (WCNC), pp. 1–6, 2020.
[12] G. Pereyra, L. Inglés, C. Rattaro, and P. Belzarena, ”An open source
multi-slice cell capacity framework,” CLEI electronic journal, vol. 25,
no. 2, pp. 2–1, 2022.
[13] Doan Perdana, Aji Nur Sanyoto, and Yoseph Gustommy Bisono, “Per-
formance evaluation and comparison of scheduling algorithms on 5G
networks using network simulator,” International Journal of Computers
Communications & Control, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 530–539, 2019.
[14] Bilal H. Abed-Alguni, David J. Paul, Stephan K. Chalup, and Frans A.
Henskens, “A comparison study of cooperative Q-learning algorithms for
independent learners,” Int. J. Artif. Intell, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 71–93, 2016.