Tenant-Aware Slice Admission Control using Neural Networks-Based Policy Agent

Aldebaro Klautau; Pedro Batista; Peter \"Ohl\'en; Shah Nawaz Khan

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 15 references

Tenant-Aware Slice Admission Control using Neural Networks-Based Policy Agent

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Giving a slice admission agent the tenant ID improves infrastructure revenue in simulated 5G networks.

desk verdict A plausible but under-evidenced claim that tenant identity improves RL slice admission; the 9-unit loss gap is likely within sampling noise. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.07494 v2 pith:M32GSEX4 submitted 2019-08-20 eess.SP

Pedro Batista , Shah Nawaz Khan , Peter Öhlén , Aldebaro Klautau This is my paper · ORCID

classification eess.SP

keywords networkslicingsliceadmissioncontrolreinforcementlearningpolicymulti-tenancyresourcemanagement5GSLAviolation

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper argues that a 5G infrastructure provider's slice admission controller should know which tenant is requesting a slice, not just how many resources the slice asks for. It trains a reinforcement-learning policy network that accepts or rejects slice requests to maximize provider revenue while avoiding SLA-violation penalties, and compares it with a tenant-unaware baseline in a simulated metro network. In the simulation, the tenant-aware agent learns to reject almost all low-value tenant 1 slices and accept more tenant 0 slices, reducing average loss from 271 to 262 cost units. The point is that adding a stable behavioral identifier to the admission state can shift decisions toward the slices that bring the most revenue.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a policy network whose state vector $s$ concatenates binary fields $A_b(x)$ encoding current system utilization, requested GPP resources at each central office and regional data center, requested link connectivity, slice duration, priority, and the tenant ID. The network has four hidden layers of 40 ReLU neurons and two outputs giving accept and reject probabilities, trained by reinforcement learning over episodes of 600 slice arrivals at 80 Erlangs load. Periodic scaling events check whether each deployed slice can get its requested resources, and violations are recorded as loss, so the agent must balance rejection loss against scaling loss. The tenant ID is the only input that differs from the baseline.

What would settle it

Re-run the comparison with tenant labels randomly shuffled between requests while keeping resource profiles fixed; if the tenant-aware agent no longer beats the baseline, the gain truly came from the tenant ID. As a statistical check, compute a confidence interval for the mean loss difference across many independently seeded 25-episode test sets and see whether it excludes zero.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that tenant awareness is a usable and profitable input for learned slice admission. In an episodic simulation with two tenants ($u_0=0.1$, $u_1=0.9$, $v_0=1$, $v_1=0.1$), where tenant 0 uses more resources and carries a higher penalty weight, the proposed policy network takes the tenant ID as an extra input and learns to reject almost all tenant 1 slices while accepting tenant 0 slices, and to accept high-priority slices more often than low-priority ones. Over 25 test episodes it reaches an average loss of 262 cost units, compared with 271 for the tenant-unaware baseline, and worse for the random, fit, and accept-all heuristics. The authors interpret this as the agent fine-tuning admission to the tenant-specific balance of revenue and SLA-violation cost.

Load-bearing premise

The claimed advantage rests on tenant identity being a stable predictor of slice resource usage and penalty in the simulation, and on the 9-unit loss gap over 25 episodes being larger than sampling noise; neither condition is tested outside this setup.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the result holds, infrastructure providers can increase revenue by adding tenant identity to the admission state without changing the underlying network or orchestration.
The learned policy effectively prioritizes tenants by expected penalty and resource profile, rejecting nearly all low-penalty, low-usage tenant 1 slices under high load.
The closed-loop control design, with arrival, scaling checks, and departure feedback, gives the agent the SLA-violation history it needs to learn the cost of each admission choice.
The same policy-network architecture can be applied to other management decisions in the loop, such as service setup and resource-pool selection.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Editorial inference: the reported 9-cost-unit gap between Prop and BL is small, and the paper does not report variance or significance; replicating with many independent episode seeds is needed to confirm the gap is not noise.
Editorial inference: the strategy of rejecting almost all tenant 1 slices would concentrate service on one tenant; in a real multi-tenant market this could raise fairness, regulatory, or long-term revenue concerns that the loss metric does not capture.
Editorial inference: the same mechanism suggests that any stable behavioral covariate, such as tenant class, service type, or geographic region, should be fed to learned admission controllers, not only raw resource usage.
Editorial inference: if tenant behavior drifts over time, the tenant ID may stop being predictive, so online retraining or periodic re-evaluation would be needed to keep the advantage.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: this is a modest, clearly-written empirical extension of Raza et al.'s RL slice admission policy. The authors add the tenant ID to the policy input and make slice resource requests noisy. In a two-tenant simulation they report average loss of 262 vs 271 for the tenant-unaware baseline, about 3.3% better. The direction is plausible: tenant identity is informative in their simulator. But the evidence is too thin to conclude anything yet.

What's good: the system model is described cleanly, the control-loop context is sensible, and the comparison against random and fit policies provides useful context. The paper is honest about its scope, and the tenant-ID feature is a genuine variation on the cited baseline, not a new paradigm. It is not a fake result either. The citation pattern is fine, building directly on Raza et al.

Soft spots: the central result rests on one trained model and one test set of 25 episodes. No confidence intervals, no repeated seeds, no paired comparison on the same arrival stream. The loss gap is 9 units, and the paper's own figures show substantial variability in rejection probabilities across classes. A 9-unit difference over 25 episodes could easily be sampling noise. The simulation has two tenants with hand-set parameters (u0=0.1, u1=0.9, v0=1, v1=0.1), so the tenant ID is almost guaranteed to matter if the agent can pick it up; the question is whether the observed gain is real and whether it generalizes. No code or data is released, which makes independent rechecking impossible. Related work mentions Q-learning and forecasting baselines, but those are not run. These are fixable problems: error bars, more scenarios, more tenants, code release, and at least one additional baseline would make the claim much stronger.

The math and modeling look consistent, and I don't see circularity or fitting to the result. This is a reasonable pilot study, not a completed result. If it goes to a venue that takes incremental simulation studies, it deserves a serious referee, but it should not be accepted as-is. I would tell the authors to add variance reporting and re-run with multiple seeds before making the tenant-awareness claim.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a reinforcement-learning-based policy agent for network slice admission control in a virtualized 5G multi-tenant infrastructure. The agent uses a neural policy network whose state representation includes system utilization, the requested slice profile, duration, priority, and the identity of the tenant making the request. The admission decision is binary (accept/reject), and the objective is to maximize infrastructure-provider revenue, modeled as a loss composed of rejection losses and SLA scaling-violation penalties. The authors extend prior work by making resource requests stochastic: a binomial noise term with a tenant-dependent success probability is subtracted from each reference profile. They simulate two tenants with different resource-usage noise and penalty weights and compare the proposed tenant-aware policy against a tenant-unaware baseline and three heuristics (random, fit-if-possible, accept-all). The main reported result is an average total loss of 262 for the proposed policy versus 271 for the baseline over a test set of 25 episodes. The paper concludes that tenant awareness contributes to a better admission policy and increased InP revenue.

Significance. If the reported 9-unit loss improvement over the baseline were statistically robust, the paper would provide a useful, incremental demonstration that tenant identity is a valuable input feature for learning-based slice admission control. The problem formulation is clearly presented, the extension to stochastic, tenant-dependent resource requests is natural, and the comparison against multiple baselines is appropriate. The main limitation is empirical: the central claim rests on a single training run and a single test batch of 25 episodes, with no confidence intervals, repeated seeds, or paired tests. The qualitative interpretation of rejection behavior in Figs. 6 and 7 is also unsupported by numeric uncertainties. The paper does not provide code or a data release, which further limits reproducibility. These issues are fixable with additional experiments rather than being fundamental modeling flaws; the work is not circular, since tenant ID is an extra input feature and the baseline is independently defined.

major comments (3)

[Section 4, Fig. 5] The central claim that tenant-aware admission improves revenue rests on a single pair of test-loss numbers: Prop=262 vs BL=271, from one trained model and one batch of 25 test episodes. The manuscript reports no variance, confidence intervals, or repeated training runs. Since each episode contains 600 stochastic arrivals with binomial resource-request noise, episode-level loss can plausibly vary by tens of units, making a 9-unit difference (about 3.3% of the total) possibly within one standard error of the mean. Please report results over multiple independent training seeds and use paired tests (e.g., bootstrap on per-episode losses with identical arrival streams for both policies) or otherwise provide a distributional comparison. The absence of code or data compounds this issue, as the result cannot be independently rechecked.
[Section 4, tenant configuration] The claimed advantage is obtained for a single, hand-chosen tenant configuration (u0=0.1, u1=0.9, v0=1, v1=0.1) in which the tenant ID directly indexes the two parameters that determine profitability (resource-usage noise and penalty weight). The paper does not test whether the tenant-aware advantage persists when tenant parameters are less separated, swapped, or varied. Without such sensitivity analysis, the general conclusion that tenant-awareness contributes to a better admission policy is not established beyond this particular configuration.
[Section 4, Figs. 6 and 7] The qualitative statements about rejection probabilities (e.g., 'the proposed strategy seems to reject almost all the tenant 1 slices') are not supported by numeric estimates or confidence intervals. These probabilities are computed from a single set of 25 test episodes, so the observed class-level behavior may not be stable. Please report the exact rejection counts or probabilities with uncertainties, or soften the qualitative claims accordingly.

minor comments (5)

[Title and abstract] The PDF text shows 'T enant-Aware' with an erroneous space in the title; please fix this typographical error.
[Section 3.2] The sentence 'a couple of Regional Data Centers (RDC), a few dozes of Central Offices' contains a typo: 'dozes' should be 'dozens'.
[Section 4] The unit 'CU' in Figure 5 is not defined at first use; please define it (e.g., currency units or cost units).
[Section 4] The simulation parameter set is incomplete: the arrival process behind 'load of 80 Erlangs and 600 arrivals' is not fully specified. Please provide the complete set of simulation parameters or cite the exact simulator version used.
[General] The paper does not include a data/code availability statement; please add one or explain why the simulator is not released.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the tenant-aware policy is evaluated empirically against an independently defined baseline, and no fitted parameter is later reported as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an empirical reinforcement-learning comparison: the proposed policy (Prop) adds a tenant-ID input to the state vector, while the baseline (BL) uses the same policy-network architecture and inputs except for that ID. The result that Prop achieves an average loss of 262 versus BL's 271 is a measured outcome of a simulation, not a quantity derived from the inputs by construction. The tenant-dependent parameters u_t and v_t define the simulated environment and the tenant-ID feature, but the policy must learn to exploit that feature; the claim is not equivalent to the simulator configuration. The baseline and heuristics (RND, Fit, ACPT) are independently specified, partly after Raza et al., and that prior work is used only to provide a comparison point and simulation ingredients, not to assert the paper's conclusion. No equation in the paper reduces the claimed tenant-awareness advantage to its own inputs, no fitted constant is renamed as a prediction, and no load-bearing argument depends on an unverified self-citation. Concerns about the 9-unit gap being within sampling noise, the absence of confidence intervals, and the lack of code or data are evidence-quality and correctness issues, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a hand-constructed simulation: tenant-dependent binomial noise and penalty weights that make tenant identity valuable, plus an inherited network model. These are modeling inputs, not fitted results, so the circularity burden is low, but they limit external validity.

free parameters (5)

Tenant resource-usage noise probabilities u0, u1 = u0=0.1, u1=0.9
Hand-set in Section 4. They determine how often each tenant's resource request is reduced, making tenant 0's requests more variable and, together with penalties, defining which slices are valuable.
Tenant penalty weights v0, v1 = v0=1, v1=0.1
Hand-set in Section 4. Tenant 0 violations cost ten times more, so the agent can profitably reject tenant 1. The size of the reported improvement depends on this asymmetry.
Resource capacities and network load = gr=80, gc=50, dl=50, 80 Erlangs, 600 arrivals
Hand-set to make CO resources the bottleneck and the system heavily loaded; the admission trade-off exists only under such load. Section 4.
Binomial noise trial count = 5 trials
Chosen because the simulator accepts integer resource requests; the noise distribution shape affects how much tenant behavior can be inferred from usage. Section 4.
Policy network architecture and training budget = 4 hidden layers x 40 neurons, ReLU, 10,000 iterations, 25 episodes per iteration
Chosen following the baseline and not varied; the results may depend on this training budget and architecture. Section 4.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The network model, topology, and slice reference profiles are taken from Raza et al. [10, 11, 12] and treated as valid without revalidation.
Used as the environment for all experiments; if these profiles are not representative of real 5G slices, the performance comparison may not transfer. Section 3.2 and Section 4.
ad hoc to paper Resource request noise is modeled as a Binomial(5, u_t) draw subtracted from each reference profile, with tenant-dependent u_t.
This ad hoc noise model is what makes tenant identity informative and is central to the claimed advantage. Section 4.
domain assumption SLA violation penalties scale linearly with tenant penalty weight v_t and with the magnitude of the resource shortfall.
The revenue model assumes proportional penalties; no real-world SLA contract is cited. Section 3.2.
domain assumption The revenue for a slice is a fixed amount agreed at admission based on slice parameters, and revenue loss from rejection equals the revenue that would have been generated.
Defined in Section 3.2; the reward structure of the MDP depends on this and is not validated against real pricing.
domain assumption The RL training schedule (10,000 iterations, 25 episodes per iteration, 80 Erlangs, 600 arrivals per episode) is assumed adequate for convergence.
No learning curves or convergence diagnostics are shown. Section 4.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Tenant-Aware Slice Admission Control using Neural Networks-Based Policy Agent." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/M32GSEX4

@misc{pith2026190807494,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Tenant-Aware Slice Admission Control using Neural Networks-Based Policy Agent},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/M32GSEX4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.07494}
}

read the original abstract

5G networks will provide the platform for deploying large number of tenant-associated management, control and end-user applications having different resource requirements at the infrastructure level. In this context, the 5G infrastructure provider must optimize the infrastructure resource utilization and increase its revenue by intelligently admitting network slices that bring the most revenue to the system. In addition, it must ensure that resources can be scaled dynamically for the deployed slices when there is a demand for them from the deployed slices. In this paper, we present a neural networks-driven policy agent for network slice admission that learns the characteristics of the slices deployed by the network tenants from their resource requirements profile and balances the costs and benefits of slice admission against resource management and orchestration costs. The policy agent learns to admit the most profitable slices in the network while ensuring their resource demands can be scaled elastically. We present the system model, the policy agent architecture and results from simulation study showing an increased revenue for infra-structure provider compared to other relevant slice admission strategies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.07494 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Flowchart representing an overview of the general network management loop. The dashed line represents exchange of information, for example, reporting the overall satisfaction experienced by the service during its lifetime. In this network sharing context, there are three distinct roles comprising the InP: the entity that owns the infrastructure on which the slices will be executed; [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Overall architecture in a flexible mobile network. Slice require functions that can be placed and consume resources in different parts of the network. The described resources are consumed by slices that deploy the presented components in the network. The maximum number of GPP that a slice can request at each CO is kc, and at any RDC is ks; and the maximum number of connectivity resource between them is km. Deployed … view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Overview of the experience gathering in the network slicing system [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (4 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Network topology used to evaluate the system. In contrast with previous work, which considered fixed slice profiles, we assume that the resource requests of a slice is non-deterministic. The current simulator accepts integer resource requests. Consequently, we chose …

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Overall results. Prop is the proposed policy, BL is the baseline, RND is random, Fit accepts a slice if there are enough resources at admission time, and ACPT is accept all the slices. The left graph shows the overall loss achieved by each policy, BL has a loss of 271,…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Rejection probability for each policy (columns), marginalized by tenant (top line), or by priority (bottom line). ACPT policy is not shown, because it is zero for all cases. Another way to investigate how slices are being classified is to examine the rejection probabil…

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Rejection probability for each policy (columns) marginalized by tenant and priority. Accept all is not shown, since it is zero for all the cases. 5 Conclusion This work presented a reinforcement learning-based policy agent for slice admission control in virtualized 5G…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

15 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

[1]

An Introduction, Beneﬁts, Enablers, Challen ges & Call for 14 P

AT&T, BT, CenturyLink, Mobile, C., Colt, Telekom, D., KDD I, NTT, Orange, Italia, T., Telefonica, Telstra, Verizon: Network Functions Vir- tualisation. An Introduction, Beneﬁts, Enablers, Challen ges & Call for 14 P. Batista et al. Action. Tech. rep., SDN and OpenFlow World Congress (Oct 201 2), https://portal.etsi.org/nfv/nfv_white_paper.pdf

work page
[2]

In: IEEE INFOCOM 2017 - IEEE Conference on Computer Comm unications

Bega, D., Gramaglia, M., Banchs, A., Sciancalepore, V., S amdanis, K., Costa- Perez, X.: Optimising 5G infrastructure markets: The busin ess of network slic- ing. In: IEEE INFOCOM 2017 - IEEE Conference on Computer Comm unications. pp. 1–9 (May 2017). https://doi.org/10.1109/INFOCOM.201 7.8057045

work page doi:10.1109/infocom.201 2017
[3]

IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications 17(10), 6419–6432 (Oct 2018)

Caballero, P., Banchs, A., de Veciana, G., Costa-Perez, X ., Azcorra, A.: Network Slicing for Guaranteed Rate Services: Admission Control an d Resource Allocation Games. IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications 17(10), 6419–6432 (Oct 2018). https://doi.org/10.1109/TWC.2018.2859918

work page arXiv 2018
[4]

Dahmen-Lhuissier, S.: Open Source MANO (Dec 2018), https://www.etsi.org/technologies-clusters/technologies/nfv/open-source-mano

work page 2018
[5]

Gomes, P., Vidal, A., Lins, S.: Next stop: Zero- touch automation standardization (Nov 2018), https://www.ericsson.com/research-blog/next-stop-zero-touch-automation-standardization/

work page 2018
[6]

IEEE Networking Letters pp

Han, B., Feng, D., Schotten, H.D.: A Markov Model of Slice Admission Control. IEEE Networking Letters pp. 1–1 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1109/LNET.2018.2873978

arXiv 2018
[7]

Mao, H., Alizadeh, M., Menache, I., Kandula, S.: Resource Manage- ment with Deep Reinforcement Learning. pp. 50–56. ACM Press (2016). https://doi.org/10.1145/3005745.3005750

arXiv 2016
[8]

IEEE Communications Magazine 56(8), 78–84 (Aug 2018)

Oliva, A., Li, X., Costa-Perez, X., Bernardos, C.J., Bert in, P., Iovanna, P., Deiss, T., Mangues, J., Mourad, A., Casetti, C., Gonzalez, J .E., Azcorra, A.: 5G-TRANSFORMER: Slicing and Orchestrating Transport Netw orks for In- dustry Verticals. IEEE Communications Magazine 56(8), 78–84 (Aug 2018). https://doi.org/10.1109/MCOM.2018.1700990

work page arXiv 2018

Show all 15 references

[9]

ONAP: ONAP Architecture Overview. Tech. rep. (Dec 2018), https://www.onap.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/20/2018/06/ONAP_CaseSolution_Architecture_0618FNL.pdf

2018
[10]

In: 2018 European Conference on Optical Communication (ECOC)

Raza, M.R., Natalino, C., Öhlen, P., Wosinska, L., Monti , P.: A Slice Admis- sion Policy Based on Reinforcement Learning for a 5G Flexibl e RAN. In: 2018 European Conference on Optical Communication (ECOC). pp. 1 –3 (Sep 2018). https://doi.org/10.1109/ECOC.2018.8535483

2018
[11]

In: 2017 European Conference o n Optical Communi- cation (ECOC)

Raza, M.R., Rostami, A., Vidal, A., Santos, M.A.S., Wosi nska, L., Monti, P.: Priority-Aware Service Orchestration Using Big Data Analy tics for Dynamic Slic- ing in 5G Transport Networks. In: 2017 European Conference o n Optical Communi- cation (ECOC). pp. 1–3 (Sep 2017). htt...

2017
[12]

In: 2018 Eu ropean Con- ference on Optical Communication (ECOC)

Raza, M.R., Rostami, A., Wosinska, L., Monti, P.: Resour ce Orchestration Meets Big Data Analytics: The Dynamic Slicing Use Case. In: 2018 Eu ropean Con- ference on Optical Communication (ECOC). pp. 1–3. IEEE, Rom e (Sep 2018). https://doi.org/10.1109/ECOC.2018.8535581

2018
[13]

IEEE Communications M agazine 54(7), 32–39 (Jul 2016)

Samdanis, K., Costa-Perez, X., Sciancalepore, V.: From network sharing to multi- tenancy: The 5G network slice broker. IEEE Communications M agazine 54(7), 32–39 (Jul 2016). https://doi.org/10.1109/MCOM.2016.75 14161

2016 doi
[14]

In: IEEE INFOCOM 2017 - IEEE Conference on Comp uter Commu- nications

Sciancalepore, V., Samdanis, K., Costa-Perez, X., Bega , D., Gramaglia, M., Banchs, A.: Mobile traﬃc forecasting for maximizing 5G netw ork slicing resource utilization. In: IEEE INFOCOM 2017 - IEEE Conference on Comp uter Commu- nications. pp. 1–9 (May 2017). https://doi.org/...

2017
[15]

IEEE/A CM Transactions on Networking pp

Zheng, J., Caballero, P., de Veciana, G., Baek, S.J., Ban chs, A.: Statistical Multi- plexing and Traﬃc Shaping Games for Network Slicing. IEEE/A CM Transactions on Networking pp. 1–14 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1109/T NET.2018.2870184

2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

An Introduction, Beneﬁts, Enablers, Challen ges & Call for 14 P

AT&T, BT, CenturyLink, Mobile, C., Colt, Telekom, D., KDD I, NTT, Orange, Italia, T., Telefonica, Telstra, Verizon: Network Functions Vir- tualisation. An Introduction, Beneﬁts, Enablers, Challen ges & Call for 14 P. Batista et al. Action. Tech. rep., SDN and OpenFlow World Congress (Oct 201 2), https://portal.etsi.org/nfv/nfv_white_paper.pdf

work page

[2] [2]

In: IEEE INFOCOM 2017 - IEEE Conference on Computer Comm unications

Bega, D., Gramaglia, M., Banchs, A., Sciancalepore, V., S amdanis, K., Costa- Perez, X.: Optimising 5G infrastructure markets: The busin ess of network slic- ing. In: IEEE INFOCOM 2017 - IEEE Conference on Computer Comm unications. pp. 1–9 (May 2017). https://doi.org/10.1109/INFOCOM.201 7.8057045

work page doi:10.1109/infocom.201 2017

[3] [3]

IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications 17(10), 6419–6432 (Oct 2018)

Caballero, P., Banchs, A., de Veciana, G., Costa-Perez, X ., Azcorra, A.: Network Slicing for Guaranteed Rate Services: Admission Control an d Resource Allocation Games. IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications 17(10), 6419–6432 (Oct 2018). https://doi.org/10.1109/TWC.2018.2859918

work page arXiv 2018

[4] [4]

Dahmen-Lhuissier, S.: Open Source MANO (Dec 2018), https://www.etsi.org/technologies-clusters/technologies/nfv/open-source-mano

work page 2018

[5] [5]

Gomes, P., Vidal, A., Lins, S.: Next stop: Zero- touch automation standardization (Nov 2018), https://www.ericsson.com/research-blog/next-stop-zero-touch-automation-standardization/

work page 2018

[6] [6]

IEEE Networking Letters pp

Han, B., Feng, D., Schotten, H.D.: A Markov Model of Slice Admission Control. IEEE Networking Letters pp. 1–1 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1109/LNET.2018.2873978

arXiv 2018

[7] [7]

Mao, H., Alizadeh, M., Menache, I., Kandula, S.: Resource Manage- ment with Deep Reinforcement Learning. pp. 50–56. ACM Press (2016). https://doi.org/10.1145/3005745.3005750

arXiv 2016

[8] [8]

IEEE Communications Magazine 56(8), 78–84 (Aug 2018)

Oliva, A., Li, X., Costa-Perez, X., Bernardos, C.J., Bert in, P., Iovanna, P., Deiss, T., Mangues, J., Mourad, A., Casetti, C., Gonzalez, J .E., Azcorra, A.: 5G-TRANSFORMER: Slicing and Orchestrating Transport Netw orks for In- dustry Verticals. IEEE Communications Magazine 56(8), 78–84 (Aug 2018). https://doi.org/10.1109/MCOM.2018.1700990

work page arXiv 2018