Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 27 references

A 100 ms deep reinforcement learning meta-scheduler that picks per-slice MAC policies can keep LEO satellite throughput within 1% of the best heuristic while sharply reducing mission-critical queuing delay variance and avoiding broadband st

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review

2026-08-04 23:17 UTC pith:DRKBU23U

load-bearing objection The meta-scheduler architecture is genuinely interesting and the capacity-parity result holds up, but the headline delay bound is not credible until the queue-accounting for failed HARQ transmissions is clarified. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2608.01668 v1 pith:DRKBU23U submitted 2026-08-03 cs.NI

LEO-Aware DRL Meta-Scheduler for 5G Non-Terrestrial Network Slicing

V\'ictor Vilchez , Tiago P. C. de Andrade , Edward Hinojosa , Edmundo Madeira , and Carlos A. Astudillo This is my paper
classification cs.NI
keywords LEO non-terrestrial networksnetwork slicingdeep reinforcement learningTD3MAC schedulingO-RANmission-critical trafficresource allocation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper tries to show that a deep reinforcement learning agent can run on the slow, 100 ms control loop already defined by O-RAN and still manage fast-changing LEO satellite channels. Instead of mapping states directly to radio blocks, the agent picks one of six standard MAC scheduling policies for each network slice, leaving per-1 ms packet scheduling to a conventional O-DU. At high offered load, the agent's total throughput stays within 1% of the best heuristic (22.44 vs 22.68 Mbps at 40 Mbps), while mission-critical queuing delay variance is reduced to the lowest among all compared policies, without starving broadband traffic. If this holds, operators get an auditable, deployable slice scheduler that enforces latency isolation in satellite cells without the black-box opacity of end-to-end deep RL.

Core claim

The paper claims to establish that a 100 ms TD3 meta-scheduler, observing aggregate queue backlogs, slice throughput, mean SNR, elevation, and Doppler, can choose slice weights and policy IDs from a six-policy 3GPP library such that the resulting MAC-layer allocations are Pareto-optimal across throughput, reliability, and fairness in a single-beam LEO cell. The central quantitative assertion is a statistically insignificant 1% capacity trade: at 40 Mbps saturation, mean system throughput is 22.44 Mbps versus 22.68 Mbps for the capacity-maximizing baseline with p>0.05 and small effect size, while mission-critical MAC-layer queuing delay (derived from RLC buffer depth via Little's Law) has the

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is a twin-timescale control loop: a strategic 100 ms meta-scheduler running at the near-RT RIC observes a 12-dimensional state (offered load, queue backlogs, throughputs, mean SNRs, elevation, Doppler) and outputs a 21-dimensional action — per-slice PRB weights plus policy logits for six MAC heuristics. An arg max projection turns the logits into concrete policy IDs (Round Robin, Maximum CQI, Proportional Fair, Maximum Queue, Delay-Aware, GBR-Aware), executed by the 1 ms O-DU scheduler. The agent is trained with TD3 under an R3 reward that combines normalized system throughput, log-proportional fairness across slices, and a packet-drop penalty with asymmetric mission-cr

Load-bearing premise

The headline delay numbers assume that bits whose physical-layer transmission fails are permanently removed from the queue; Algorithm 1 subtracts scheduled bits before the HARQ check, and the paper never states whether failed bits are re-queued or retransmitted.

What would settle it

Instrument the simulator to count HARQ-failed bits that return to the RLC queue, or run a variant where failed bits are re-queued, and recompute mission-critical delay with Little's Law; if the variance compression and median bound disappear or degrade sharply, the claimed isolation depends on drop accounting rather than on the meta-scheduler's policy choices.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • Near-optimal capacity: at 40 Mbps offered load, the meta-scheduler achieves 22.44 Mbps against a 22.68 Mbps ceiling, a 1% difference that the Wilcoxon test deems statistically insignificant (p>0.05).
  • Variance compression: mission-critical MAC queuing delay shows the lowest IQR (0.098 PF variance) among all five policies under 30–40 Mbps saturation, giving SLA isolation without the starvation seen with Max-CQI.
  • Auditability: because the agent selects from standardized heuristics rather than emitting raw PRB allocations, operators can trace which scheduling logic is active at any orbital geometry.
  • Scalability: the action space stays at 21 continuous dimensions regardless of cell density, avoiding the O(|U|×F) explosion of end-to-end DRL.
  • Architectural fit: the 100 ms/1 ms split matches O-RAN's near-RT RIC and O-DU responsibilities, so the design is deployable as an xApp.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The 1% capacity trade-off is demonstrated for a single beam; extending to dense multi-beam constellations will likely require multi-agent coordination, and the trade-off may shift when inter-beam interference enters the picture.
  • A direct robustness test is to re-insert failed HARQ bits into the RLC queue (or track them explicitly) and recompute delay; if the variance compression persists, the claim is immune to the drop-accounting choice.
  • Because the state includes elevation and Doppler, the same agent should handle satellite handovers; a 90-minute orbital-period run would test whether the learned policy remains stable across the full pass.
  • Because the policy library is fixed, an operator could in principle replace or extend the six heuristics without retraining the core agent, making the approach incrementally deployable.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a TD3-based meta-scheduler for O-RAN-compatible LEO NTN slicing. The 100 ms near-real-time RIC agent observes slice-aggregated KPIs and LEO geometry, and outputs slice PRB weights plus per-slice policy IDs selected from a library of six standard MAC heuristics. A 1 ms O-DU MAC scheduler executes those directives. The R3 reward combines normalized system throughput, log-proportional fairness, and a drop penalty. The evaluation simulates a single-beam 600 km LEO cell with 300 users under 10–40 Mbps offered load, comparing the proposed policy against four heuristic baselines. The central claims are that at 40 Mbps saturation the meta-scheduler achieves statistically indistinguishable throughput from the best baseline (22.44 vs 22.68 Mbps, p > 0.05), compresses the variance and magnitude of MC queuing delay, and preserves fairness without eMBB starvation.

Significance. If the claims hold, this is a useful and pragmatic contribution: it addresses action-space explosion in dense LEO cells, aligns with O-RAN control-loop timescales, and provides explainability by restricting meta-decisions to interpretable heuristics. The experimental design is careful in several respects: identical seeds across policies, N=50 episodes, Wilcoxon rank-sum tests and Cohen's d for the throughput comparison, and a reported saturation throughput that plausibly tracks the simulated channel capacity. The decoupled architecture and the reward formulation are well motivated. The main uncertainty is whether the delay and fairness results are artifacts of queue accounting and of optimizing metrics that are also the reported performance measures. Because the central 'strictly bounds MC delay' claim depends on these points, the contribution is not yet fully established.

major comments (4)
  1. [Algorithm 1, Eq. (2), Section V-C] The treatment of HARQ failures is underspecified at the exact point where the headline result is produced. Algorithm 1 deducts B_sch,u from the RLC queue at line 13 before the physical-layer check of Eq. (2). The text states that bits failing SE(eta_u) < SE(eta_hat_u) are 'marked as dropped by the environment,' but it does not state whether those bits are re-queued, retransmitted, or permanently removed. If they are removed without retransmission, the RLC backlog used for Little's Law in Section V-C excludes exactly the data that was not successfully delivered. A policy that aggressively schedules MC users at a stale high MCS can clear their queues even when transmission fails, deflating the measured MC delay and its variance. The comparison across policies may still be internally consistent if all policies fail identically, but the absolute 'strict bound' claim is not supported. Please
  2. [Eq. (3), Tables III and IV] Two of the three headline evaluation metrics are the quantities directly optimized by the R3 reward. The PF score in Table III is literally log10(Ts + epsilon) with wfair = 2.0, and the MC delay/drop behavior is dominated by the drop penalty Pdrop, with the reported MC delay weight 10x eMBB in Table II. Reporting that the trained agent achieves high PF and low delay is therefore partly circular: these are training objectives, not emergent properties. This does not invalidate the comparison against baselines, but the paper should state this alignment explicitly and temper claims that the agent 'achieves' top-tier fairness. A stronger evaluation would include metrics not in the reward, or ablate the reward components to show which term causes the delay compression.
  3. [Figure 4 and Section V-C] The central claim of strictly bounding MC delay variance and magnitude is not supported by statistical evidence. Figure 4 shows boxplots, but no hypothesis tests, confidence intervals, or quantile tables are reported for the delay distributions. The text says the R3 meta-scheduler 'effectively compresses variance and limits the overall MC delay,' but the actual 90th/99th percentile or maximum delay is not given. Since the abstract uses the word 'strictly bound,' the authors should provide quantitative bounds, such as worst-case or high-quantile delay across the 50 episodes, with uncertainty estimates. Hiding extreme outliers in the boxplot further obscures the very behavior the paper claims to control.
  4. [Section V-A and Section VI] The experimental scope is narrower than the claims imply. Each episode is only 15 seconds, which is a small fraction of a 600 km LEO orbital period (approximately 90 minutes). The paper acknowledges in Section VI that a complete orbital period and handovers remain future work, but the abstract and introduction emphasize non-stationary orbital dynamics. The current evaluation does not demonstrate behavior across the full elevation/Doppler range, handovers, or inter-beam interference. This is a scope limitation rather than an error, but it should be stated more prominently in the abstract and conclusions, and the phrase 'strictly bounds' should be restricted to the simulated operating regime.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Abstract vs. Section V] The abstract refers to 'RLC-layer queuing delay,' while the body and Section V-C use 'MAC-layer queuing delay.' The metric should be named consistently.
  2. [Table III] The column labeled 'PF Variance (IQR)' is not variance; interquartile range is a different dispersion measure. Please rename the column or report both.
  3. [Figure 4] Extreme outliers are hidden to show variance compression; however, hiding outliers is problematic when the claim is about bounding delay magnitude. Consider showing outliers as points or reporting high quantiles alongside the boxplots.
  4. [Table II and Eq. (3)] Table II lists 'MC delay weight 10x eMBB', but Eq. (3) does not show separate delay weights; only Pdrop is weighted. Please clarify how the MC delay weight enters the reward and how it relates to Pdrop.
  5. [Section IV-B] Equation (3) uses Csys/10 as a 10 Mbps normalization, but at saturation Csys can be around 22.4 Mbps, making this component roughly 2.24. The reward scale and clip bounds [rmin, rmax] are not specified; please provide them.
  6. [References] Reference [13] (REDQ) lacks venue and year. Reference [18] is an arXiv-only preprint; consider citing a published version if available.
  7. [Section V-D] The phrase 'Pareto-optimal' is used without a formal trade-off analysis. The paper demonstrates a single operating point, not a Pareto frontier. Please rephrase or provide a frontier evaluation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; the empirical evaluation is transparently aligned with the R3 reward, and the main risk is an underspecified queue-accounting mechanism, not a circular derivation.

full rationale

The paper is an empirical RL engineering study, not a first-principles derivation. Its central claim is that a TD3 meta-scheduler, when trained with the stated R3 reward (Eq. 3), achieves a favorable trade-off among throughput, fairness, and MC queuing delay relative to five heuristic baselines. The evaluation metrics overlap with the reward components (e.g., the PF score is log10(Ts+0.01), the same functional form as the fairness term in Eq. 3), but this overlap is disclosed and is not a circular reduction: the agent must still learn the trade-off, and all baselines are evaluated on identical metrics. There are no load-bearing self-citations; references to TD3, REDQ, O-RAN, and 3GPP are external and independent. The most serious concern is a correctness/accounting gap, not circularity: Algorithm 1 deducts scheduled bits from the RLC queue before the physical-layer check (lines 11–13), and the text says failed bits are 'marked as dropped by the environment' without stating whether they are re-queued or retransmitted. Because MC delay is computed via Little's Law from queue depths (Section V-C), this underspecification could deflate the reported delay bound under saturation. This is a modeling validity issue, not a reduction of the result to its own inputs, so it does not raise the circularity score.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper is honest that the reward weights are hand-tuned, but two of the three headline evaluation metrics (PF score and MC queuing delay) are the very quantities the R3 reward optimizes, so those results are partly restatements of the objective. The capacity-parity result (22.44 vs 22.68 Mbps) is not encoded in the reward and is the strongest independent empirical finding. The listed free parameters are scenario and reward settings; no data or code is provided to check their effect.

free parameters (6)
  • reward fairness weight wfair = 2.0
    Hand-set and asserted 'validated via ablation across 5 independent training runs' (Section IV-C), but no ablation results are shown; it directly shapes the PF scores reported in Table III.
  • MC delay penalty weight = 10x eMBB
    Asymmetric delay penalty in the R3 reward; this weight is the mechanism that produces the MC queuing-delay compression, so the headline delay result is largely an artifact of this hand-picked value.
  • PF stability constant epsilon = 0.01
    Chosen to prevent -infinity utility in log10(Ts + epsilon); affects both the reward values and the reported PF scores.
  • traffic asymmetry vector v = [0.50, 0.25, 0.25]
    Volumetric load split across eMBB/MC/mMTC chosen by the authors; affects how much load the MC slice sees and therefore the delay comparison.
  • user distribution p = [0.50, 0.30, 0.20]
    Slice user fractions set for the scenario; combined with v it determines per-user arrival rates and queue dynamics.
  • burst model parameters = p=0.1, factor=0.5
    Eq. (1) traffic burst model parameters set by hand; they drive congestion spikes in the simulation.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption The O-RAN temporal decoupling (100 ms near-RT RIC, 1 ms O-DU) is a valid model for LEO NTN orchestration
    Sections III and IV build the MDP and architecture on this split; the paper itself notes it does not implement E2/O1 interfaces, so O-RAN compatibility is asserted by design.
  • domain assumption The trace-driven propagation model (free-space path loss, Doppler, Jakes fading at 600 km altitude) approximates the true LEO channel
    Section III-A: the performance results and the HARQ validation in Eq. (2) rely on this channel model behaving like a real LEO link.
  • domain assumption Bits that fail physical-layer validation have the queue-accounting behavior assumed by the simulator
    The paper does not specify whether failed transmissions are re-queued or permanently removed; the central MAC-delay metric is computed from queue depths, so this modeling choice is load-bearing.
  • standard math Little's Law (W = L/lambda) is applicable to the simulated RLC buffer and yields a valid queuing delay estimate
    Section V-C: delay values are derived from buffer depth; validity requires stationarity and mean arrival assumptions not verified in the paper.
  • domain assumption TD3 converges to a policy representative of the optimized meta-scheduler within 1,500 episodes
    Section IV-C: the paper reports hyperparameters and training runs but shows no learning curves or convergence diagnostics.

reviewed 2026-08-04 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of LEO-Aware DRL Meta-Scheduler for 5G Non-Terrestrial Network Slicing." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DRKBU23U

@misc{pith2026260801668,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: LEO-Aware DRL Meta-Scheduler for 5G Non-Terrestrial Network Slicing},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DRKBU23U}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.01668}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

The integration of Low Earth Orbit (LEO) Non-Terrestrial Networks (NTNs) into 5G and upcoming 6G architectures introduces various challenges, including severe propagation delays, ultra-high base station mobility, and channel non-stationarity, complicating radio resource management of heterogeneous network slices. In this paper, we propose a deep reinforcement learning (DRL) meta-scheduler for twin-timescale resource allocation. Our solution adopts a decoupled Open Radio Access Network (RAN) architecture, in which a strategic 100 ms meta-scheduler selects scheduling policies for the different network slices using stale telemetry, while a fast-timescale MAC packet scheduler processes per-TTI user requests. The resulting Markov Decision Process captures non-stationary orbital dynamics and heterogeneous SLAs constraints via a TD3 agent. Simulation results under varying traffic load show that, unlike other solutions, the proposed meta-scheduler explicitly trades a statistically insignificant 1% capacity fraction (p > 0.05) to strictly bound the variance and overall magnitude of RLC-layer queuing delay for Mission-Critical (MC) traffic. Crucially, it enforces this isolation without inducing the broadband slice starvation characteristic of standard maximum-CQI heuristics, establishing a robust foundation for 6G O-RAN NTN resource allocation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.01668 by and Carlos A. Astudillo, Edmundo Madeira, Edward Hinojosa, Tiago P. C. de Andrade, V\'ictor Vilchez.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: DRL-based LEO NTN RAN meta-scheduler. A TD3 agent operates [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: LEO NTN system model. (Left) Geographic distribution of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: A grouped boxplot illustrating the Mission-Critical MAC-layer [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Study on New Radio (NR) to support non-terrestrial networks,

    3GPP, “Study on New Radio (NR) to support non-terrestrial networks,” 3GPP, Technical Report (TR) 38.811, 2017, release 15. Latest version: v15.4.0

    work page 2017

  2. [2]

    Solutions for NR to support Non-Terrestrial Networks (NTN),

    ——, “Solutions for NR to support Non-Terrestrial Networks (NTN),” 3GPP, Technical Report (TR) 38.821, 2018, release 16. Latest version: v16.2.0

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    Evolution of non-terrestrial networks from 5g to 6g: A survey,

    M. M. Azari, S. Solanki, S. Chatzinotas, O. Kodheli, H. Sallouha, A. Colpaert, J. F. Mendoza Montoya, S. Pollin, A. Haqiqatnejad, A. Mostaani, E. Lagunas, and B. Ottersten, “Evolution of non-terrestrial networks from 5g to 6g: A survey,”IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 2633–2672, 2022

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    Col- laborative computing in non-terrestrial networks: A multi-time-scale deep reinforcement learning approach,

    Y . Cao, S.-Y . Lien, Y .-C. Liang, D. Niyato, and X. Shen, “Col- laborative computing in non-terrestrial networks: A multi-time-scale deep reinforcement learning approach,”IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 4932–4949, 2024

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Reconfigurable ran slicing for ultra-dense leo satellite networks via drl,

    Y . Liu, T. Ma, X. Qin, H. Zhou, and X. S. Shen, “Reconfigurable ran slicing for ultra-dense leo satellite networks via drl,”IEEE Transactions on Cognitive Communications and Networking, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 566– 580, 2025

    work page 2025

  6. [6]

    Slice- dran: Service-aware network slicing framework for 5g radio access networks,

    B. Ojaghi, F. Adelantado, A. Antonopoulos, and C. Verikoukis, “Slice- dran: Service-aware network slicing framework for 5g radio access networks,”IEEE Systems Journal, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 2556–2567, 2022

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Digital twin- assisted robust and adaptive resource slicing in leo satellite networks,

    M. He, H. Wu, C. Zhou, S. Hu, Z. Tang, and W. Zhuang, “Digital twin- assisted robust and adaptive resource slicing in leo satellite networks,” in GLOBECOM 2024 - 2024 IEEE Global Communications Conference, 2024, pp. 3261–3266

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Deployments of o-ran-based non-terrestrial networks,

    NEC, Virginia Tech, Korea Telecom, AccelerComm, Satellite Applica- tions Catapult, Rakuten, Cisco, AsiaInfo, and TCS, “Deployments of o-ran-based non-terrestrial networks,” O-RAN Alliance, White Paper O-RAN.WP.IEFG.O-RAN NTN, 2024, contributing organizations

    work page 2024

  9. [9]

    Reinforcement learning in the sky: A survey on enabling intelligence in ntn-based communications,

    T. Naous, M. Itani, M. Awad, and S. Sharafeddine, “Reinforcement learning in the sky: A survey on enabling intelligence in ntn-based communications,”IEEE Access, vol. 11, pp. 19 941–19 968, 2023

    work page 2023

  10. [10]

    Machine learning techniques for non- terrestrial networks,

    R. Giuliano and E. Innocenti, “Machine learning techniques for non- terrestrial networks,”Electronics, vol. 12, no. 3, 2023

    work page 2023

  11. [11]

    Low-carbon federated multiagent-drl enhanced network slicing for satellite direct-to-device communications,

    H. Wang, W. Qi, M. Kadoch, and T. Hong, “Low-carbon federated multiagent-drl enhanced network slicing for satellite direct-to-device communications,”IEEE Internet of Things Journal, vol. 11, no. 24, pp. 39 158–39 169, 2024

    work page 2024

  12. [12]

    Federated deep reinforcement learning based computation offloading in a low earth orbit satellite edge computing system,

    M. Jia, J. Wu, X. Wang, and Q. Guo, “Federated deep reinforcement learning based computation offloading in a low earth orbit satellite edge computing system,”Frontiers of Information Technology & Electronic Engineering, vol. 26, no. 5, pp. 805–815, 2025

    work page 2025

  13. [13]

    Randomized ensembled double q-learning: Learning fast without a model,

    X. Chen, C. Wang, Z. Zhou, and K. Ross, “Randomized ensembled double q-learning: Learning fast without a model,” 2021

    work page 2021

  14. [14]

    Intelligent radio access network slicing for service provisioning in 6g: A hierarchical deep reinforcement learning approach,

    J. Mei, X. Wang, K. Zheng, G. Boudreau, A. B. Sediq, and H. Abou- Zeid, “Intelligent radio access network slicing for service provisioning in 6g: A hierarchical deep reinforcement learning approach,”IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol. 69, no. 9, pp. 6063–6078, 2021

    work page 2021

  15. [15]

    Ultra-dense leo satellite access network slicing: A deep reinforcement learning approach,

    Y . Liu, T. Ma, Z. Tang, X. Qin, H. Zhou, and X. Shen, “Ultra-dense leo satellite access network slicing: A deep reinforcement learning approach,” inGLOBECOM 2023 - 2023 IEEE Global Communications Conference, 2023, pp. 5043–5048

    work page 2023

  16. [16]

    Priority-based load balancing with multiagent deep reinforcement learning for space-air-ground integrated network slicing,

    H. Tu, P. Bellavista, L. Zhao, G. Zheng, K. Liang, and K.-K. Wong, “Priority-based load balancing with multiagent deep reinforcement learning for space-air-ground integrated network slicing,”IEEE Internet of Things Journal, vol. 11, no. 19, pp. 30 690–30 703, 2024

    work page 2024

  17. [17]

    Channel-Aware 5g RAN slicing with customizable schedulers,

    Y . Chen, R. Yao, H. Hassanieh, and R. Mittal, “Channel-Aware 5g RAN slicing with customizable schedulers,” in20th USENIX Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation. Boston, MA: USENIX Association, 2023, pp. 1767–1782

    work page 2023

  18. [18]

    A comprehensive survey on ultra-reliable low-latency com- munication (urllc) in non-terrestrial networks,

    A. Saeed, “A comprehensive survey on ultra-reliable low-latency com- munication (urllc) in non-terrestrial networks,” 2024

    work page 2024

  19. [19]

    When to reach for the skies? a drl-based routing framework for non-terrestrial networks,

    A. Sharma, S. Tripathi, and S. Joshi, “When to reach for the skies? a drl-based routing framework for non-terrestrial networks,”IEEE Networking Letters, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 16–20, 2025

    work page 2025

  20. [20]

    Emerging technologies for 6g non-terrestrial-networks: From academia to industrial applications,

    C. T. Nguyen, Y . M. Saputra, N. V . Huynh, T. N. Nguyen, D. T. Hoang, D. N. Nguyen, V .-Q. Pham, M. V oznak, S. Chatzinotas, and D.-H. Tran, “Emerging technologies for 6g non-terrestrial-networks: From academia to industrial applications,”IEEE Open Journal of the Communications Society, vol. 5, pp. 3852–3885, 2024

    work page 2024

  21. [21]

    Intelligent qos-aware slice resource allocation with user association parameteriza- tion for beyond 5g o-ran-based architecture using drl,

    S. Mhatre, F. Adelantado, K. Ramantas, and C. Verikoukis, “Intelligent qos-aware slice resource allocation with user association parameteriza- tion for beyond 5g o-ran-based architecture using drl,”IEEE Transac- tions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 74, no. 2, pp. 3096–3109, 2025

    work page 2025

  22. [22]

    DFRDRL: A dynamic fuzzy routing algorithm based on deep reinforcement learning with guaranteed latency and bandwidth for software-defined networks,

    Y . Wang, M. Othman, W. O. Choo, R. Liu, and X. Wang, “DFRDRL: A dynamic fuzzy routing algorithm based on deep reinforcement learning with guaranteed latency and bandwidth for software-defined networks,” Journal of Big Data, vol. 11, no. 1, p. 150, 2024

    work page 2024

  23. [23]

    O-ran use cases and deployment scenarios,

    O-RAN Alliance, “O-ran use cases and deployment scenarios,” O-RAN Alliance, White Paper, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.o-ran.org

    work page 2020

  24. [24]

    NR; Medium Access Control (MAC) protocol specification,

    3GPP, “NR; Medium Access Control (MAC) protocol specification,” 3GPP, Technical Specification (TS) 38.321, 2017, release 15. Latest version: Release 19, v19.1.0

    work page 2017

  25. [25]

    Performance evaluation of scheduling scheme in o-ran 5g network using ns-3,

    A. K. Subudhi, A. Piccioni, V . Gudepu, A. Marotta, F. Graziosi, R. Hegde, and K. Kondepu, “Performance evaluation of scheduling scheme in o-ran 5g network using ns-3,” in2024 IEEE Future Networks World Forum (FNWF), 2024, pp. 590–595

    work page 2024

  26. [26]

    Addressing function ap- proximation error in actor-critic methods,

    S. Fujimoto, H. van Hoof, and D. Meger, “Addressing function ap- proximation error in actor-critic methods,” inProceedings of the 35th International Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, 2018, pp. 1587–1596, iCML 2018; PMLR 80

    work page 2018

  27. [27]

    An integrated satellite–terrestrial 5g network and its use to demonstrate 5g use cases,

    B. Evans, N. Wang, Y . Rahulan, S. Kumar, J. Cahill, M. Kavanagh, S. Watts, D.-K. Chau, Y . Begassat, A.-P. Brunel, T. Masson, and M. Diarra, “An integrated satellite–terrestrial 5g network and its use to demonstrate 5g use cases,”International Journal of Satellite commu- nications and Networking, vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 358–379, 2021

    work page 2021

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 4, 2026.