Adaptive AI Model Partitioning over 5G Networks
Extracted source text · arXiv 2509.01906
\newcommand{\CLASSINPUTtoptextmargin}{.75in} % 0.72 0.705inc
\newcommand{\CLASSINPUTbottomtextmargin}{.95in} % 0.93%0.326in
\newcommand{\CLASSINPUTinnersidemargin}{0.575in} %.575in is boundary
\newcommand{\CLASSINPUToutersidemargin}{0.68in} %0.68in is boundary 0.7
\documentclass[conference,10pt,letterpaper]{IEEEtran}
\newcommand{\mao}[1]{\textcolor{orange}{Mao: #1}\PackageWarning{Mao:}{#1!}}
\newcommand{\ltl}[1]{\textcolor{red}{Long: #1}\PackageWarning{Long:}{#1!}}
%\usepackage[margin=0.75in]{geometry}
\usepackage{graphicx} % Required for inserting images
% \usepackage{hyperref}
\usepackage[hidelinks,bookmarks=false]{hyperref}
\usepackage{booktabs}
\usepackage{xcolor}
\usepackage{amsmath, amssymb}
%\usepackage{algorithm}
\usepackage[linesnumbered,ruled,vlined]{algorithm2e}
%\usepackage[ruled,vlined,linesnumbered]{algorithm2e}
\usepackage{algpseudocode}
\usepackage{subcaption} % Add this in your preamble
\usepackage{comment}
\setlength{\columnsep}{0.22in} % The gutter between columns
% Custom command definition
\usepackage{graphicx} % Required for inserting images
%\title{Adaptive \& Privacy-preserving AI Model Partitioning over Dynamic 5G Wireless Channels}
\title{Adaptive AI Model Partitioning over 5G Networks}
%\if 0
\author{
\IEEEauthorblockN{Tam Thanh Nguyen, Tuan Van Ngo, Long Thanh Le, Yong Hao Pua,\\
Mao Van Ngo, Binbin Chen, and Tony Q.~S.~Quek}
\IEEEauthorblockA{{\small \{{nguyen\_thanhtam}, {vantuan\_ngo}, {thanhlong\_le}, {vanmao\_ngo}, {yonghao\_pua}, binbin\_chen, tonyquek\}@sutd.edu.sg}}}
%\fi
\if 0
\author{
Tam Thanh Nguyen\thanks{Email: nguyen\_thanhtam@sutd.edu.sg},
Tuan Van Ngo\thanks{Email: vantuan\_ngo@sutd.edu.sg},
Long Thanh Le\thanks{Email: thanhlong\_le@sutd.edu.sg},
Yong Hao Pua\thanks{Email: yonghao\_pua@sutd.edu.sg},\\
Mao Van Ngo\thanks{Email: vanmao\_ngo@sutd.edu.sg},
Binbin Chen\thanks{Email: binbin\_chen@sutd.edu.sg},
and Tony Q.~S.~Quek\thanks{Email: tonyquek@sutd.edu.sg}\\
Singapore University of Technology and Design (SUTD), Singapore
}
\fi
\date{March 2025}
% potential conference: https://globecom2025.ieee-globecom.org/call-symposium-papers
\begin{document}
\maketitle
\begin{abstract}
Mobile devices increasingly rely on deep neural networks (DNNs) for complex inference tasks, but running entire models locally drains the device battery quickly. Offloading computation entirely to cloud or edge servers reduces processing load at devices but poses privacy risks and can incur high network bandwidth consumption and long delays. Split computing (SC) mitigates these challenges by partitioning DNNs between user equipment (UE) and edge servers.
%, optimizing bandwidth and efficiency.
However, 5G wireless channels are time-varying and a fixed splitting scheme can lead to sub-optimal solutions. %introduce significant delays in task execution.
%In this paper, we leverages AI-RAN system with NVIDIA Aerial 5G to predict users' maximum achievable throughput.
This paper addresses the limitations of fixed model partitioning in privacy-focused image processing and explores trade-offs in key performance metrics, including end-to-end (E2E) latency, energy consumption, and privacy, by developing an adaptive ML partitioning scheme based on real-time AI-powered throughput estimation. Evaluation in multiple scenarios demonstrates significant performance gains of our scheme.
%, we demonstrate how to effectively optimize privacy, latency, energy consumption, and throughput in 5G environments.
\end{abstract}
\section{Introduction}
% Introduce AI-RAN 5G and Splitting Compute is very important:
% Issue of current works:
The proliferation of mobile devices and their growing reliance on deep neural networks (DNNs) for tasks such as image recognition~\cite{simonyan2014vgg}, natural language processing (NLP), and generative AI has introduced significant challenges in balancing computational efficiency, latency, energy consumption, and data privacy. While mobile hardware continues to improve, the execution of full-scale DNN inference on UE remains resource intensive and drains battery quickly. To mitigate this burden, computation is often offloaded to cloud or edge servers. Although this approach reduces processing demands on the device, it introduces new concerns regarding data privacy and dependence on network quality.
Split computing (SC)~\cite{neurosurgeon, boomerang} has emerged as a promising solution, offering a middle ground by partitioning DNN models between the UE and nearby edge servers. This technique enables partial processing on the device and delegates the remaining inference to the edge, thereby reducing local resource consumption while limiting the extent of data exposed beyond the device. Despite its advantages, most existing SC approaches rely on static partitioning strategies that fail to adapt to the dynamic nature of wireless environments. In 5G networks, rapid fluctuations in channel throughput and latency—exacerbated by interference from neighboring base stations and multiple competing UEs—introduce significant variability in network performance. Furthermore, UE mobility and environmental transitions, such as moving between indoor and outdoor areas, vehicular movement, and changes in line-of-sight conditions, result in unstable connectivity and variable signal quality. Compounding these issues are potential jamming attacks, including barrage jamming, which targets entire frequency bands, and smart jamming, which selectively disrupts specific data streams. Under such volatile conditions, fixed model partitioning leads to sub-optimal resource utilization, increased E2E latency, and a degraded quality of experience for the end user.
%However, current SC approaches often rely on static partitioning strategies that fail to account for fluctuations in wireless channel conditions. In dynamic 5G environments, channel throughput and latency vary rapidly, and another challenge is interference from adjacent base stations and multiple UEs, which leads to increased network congestion and degraded data transmission. Additionally, UE mobility and environmental factors—such as moving between indoor and outdoor environments, traveling in vehicles, or experiencing varying line-of-sight conditions—further contribute to unstable connections and fluctuating signal strength. Another critical issue is jamming attacks, where adversaries deliberately disrupt 5G signals using techniques like barrage jamming (blocking entire frequency bands) or smart jamming (targeting specific data transmissions). These challenges will be severe under fixed splitting points which lead to inefficient resource usage, increased latency, and degraded user experience.
%These challenges lead to higher energy consumption due to frequent retransmissions, increased inference delays, and privacy risks, as sensitive intermediate data may be exposed when transmitted over unstable or compromised networks.
To address these limitations, this paper investigates adaptive ML model partitioning for privacy-sensitive image processing applications in 5G networks. We propose a novel framework that leverages real-time AI-powered spectrum sensing to dynamically adjust the DNN partitioning point based on current channel conditions. Using the AI-RAN platform with NVIDIA Aerial 5G stack, we predict the maximum achievable throughput for each UE and optimize ML model splitting accordingly. Our approach systematically evaluates the trade-offs among E2E latency, energy consumption, throughput, and privacy, demonstrating that adaptive partitioning significantly outperforms static schemes across key performance indicators. Our main contributions are:
%Model splitting is a technique used in edge-cloud AI systems, where a deep learning model is divided between a user device (UE), Edge or Cloud server to optimize computation, latency, and privacy.
\begin{comment}
In fixed ML model partitioning, the ML model is always split at a predetermined layer, regardless of network conditions.
% Neurosurgeon issues
While this approach works well in stable networks, it becomes inefficient in dynamic 5G environments, where interference, mobility, and jamming can significantly degrade performance.
Certain fixed splitting points may require transmitting sensitive intermediate model outputs over the network, increasing the risk of privacy leakage. In the presence of eavesdroppers, adversaries could intercept these transmissions, reconstruct critical user data, or exploit vulnerabilities in AI inference pipelines, leading to potential data breaches.
%in applications like healthcare diagnostics or facial recognition.
Given that model splitting decisions are influenced by the time-varying network channel conditions \cite{dynamicPartition}, there has been increasing research interest in adaptive splitting.
\end{comment}
% Propose solution:
\begin{itemize}
\item An adaptive ML-partitioning scheme, considering privacy, E2E delay, and UE energy consumption jointly\footnote{Our prototype was demonstrated in AI-RAN Alliance booth at Mobile World Congress (MWC) Barcelona 2025, see \href{https://youtu.be/OXt4shUh0fs}{https://youtu.be/OXt4shUh0fs} }.
%\item Investigate in depth RAN performance metrics related to a throughput estimator, and include IQ based spectrogram images into the throughput estimator to address challenging environments.
\item A novel ML architecture to capture both the temporal relation of radio measurement metrics and In-phase and Quadrature (IQ) data as additional features, to predict maximum achievable throughput under diverse dynamic wireless channels.
%, e.g., different types of jamming, interferences.
%\item Design a reference system architecture for splitting AI workload between UE and Edge server over 5G networks.
\item The proposed solution was evaluated on a 5G testbed based on NVIDIA Aerial stack. Compared to baselines, our scheme achieved an improvement of up to 65\% in E2E delay, while preserving privacy and balancing energy consumption of UE.
\end{itemize}
\section{Related Works}
\label{sec:relatedWork}
%\subsection{AI-driven Spectrum Sensing in 5G Networks}
% Long put 3 papers related here
%Zhou \textit{et al.}~\cite{zhou2021radio} proposed a modified Generative Adversarial Network (E-GAN) for radio anomaly detection. The authors processed the spectrogram image through encoder, generator, and discriminator to reconstruct spectrograms, with anomalies detected based on reconstruction error and discriminator loss. However, the evaluation relies on simulated OFDM data, which lacks the complexity of real 5G signal with multiple physical channels. Additionally, the convolutional discriminator, while effective, introduces computational overhead and potential inference delays, making it less suitable for real-time anomaly detection and localization in dynamic 5G environments.
%Sciancalepore \textit{et al.} \cite{sciancalepore2023jamming} addressed the case of disrupting drone communication under jamming, where early detecting jamming is very important. Instead of observing consequent metrics (e.g., high Bit-Error-Rate BER, high SNR, or low Packet Delivery Rate--PDR) as post jamming, the authors used IQ samples from raw PHY layer, converted into black-white images, to detect jamming early in low-BLER, using sparse autoencoders, enabling early detection before link failure occurs.
%\textbf{Can use this paper as a prove that can early detect jamming}
%Varotto et al. \cite{varotto2024detecting} proposed a ML-based monitoring watchdog device under the 5G system to detect narrowband jammers, specifically targeting synchronization signal blocks (SSB). They evaluated CNN, k-NN, and SVM classifiers using spectrograms generated from IQ data in a USRP-based 5G testbed. While achieving high detection accuracy, the study only train and test with limited scenarios, and requires deploying a monitoring device to detect jammers. In contrast, our work introduce built-in spectrum sensing in the gNB to detect different wireless scenarios (including jamming with wideband and narrowband).
%While achieving high detection accuracy, the study highlights the challenge of detecting low-bandwidth jammers that disrupt communication without significantly affecting metrics like SNR or BER.
%\textbf{This is to show there are multiple methods developed for anomaly detection for IQ data}
%Toma et al. \cite{toma2020ai} proposed a PHY-layer abnormality detection framework using generative models, targeting both wideband and OFDM signals. Their Dynamic Bayesian Network (DBN) method specifically models the temporal behavior of OFDM subcarriers using generalized state vectors that include amplitude, phase, and their derivatives. Abnormalities such as jamming are detected through deviations in predicted subcarrier dynamics, enabling effective detection without prior signal knowledge.
%\textbf{This is to show there are multiple method developed for anomaly detection for IQ data}
%\mao{I feel This paper is not very relevant, and too much on technique that we do not aim to compare. Long can find another one, and remove this paper.}
\subsection{ML model Splitting in Edge-Cloud Networks}
Neurosurgeon \cite{neurosurgeon} introduced an automated approach for splitting DNN model by dynamically determining the best partition point, based on estimation of latency and energy consumption of each DNN layer on both UE and server. % However, Neurosurgeon optimizes only a single performance metric at a time. %, and its cloud-centric paradigm raises concerns about potential privacy risks.
Eshratifar \textit{et al.}~\cite{jointDnn} proposed JointDNN, %a scheduling engine that utilizes a graph-based approach to make real-time scheduling decisions for DNN inference. The JointDNN
considering multiple constraints, including battery limitation, cloud server congestion, and quality of service, to optimize mobile energy consumption or latency at run time.
Li \textit{et al.}~\cite{jalad} presented JALAD,
%a joint accuracy- and latency-aware execution framework that dynamically partitions DNN model between UE and the cloud.
%This JALAD framework
which employs in-layer feature map compression and adjusts the splitting point based on network conditions and device capabilities to minimize execution latency while preserving model accuracy.
Banitalebi \textit{et al.}~\cite{auto-split} proposed Auto-Split, %an edge-cloud collaborative framework that optimizes overall latency without compromising accuracy. Auto-Split achieves this by
applying UE-cloud splitting and post-training quantization to the UE DNN. Auto-Split considers several constraints related to UE devices, networks, and cloud devices to determine the optimal splitting point.
Zeng \textit{et al.} \cite{boomerang} presented Boomerang, %a DNN inference framework designed for low-latency edge intelligence.
leveraging DNN right-sizing, an early-exit mechanism, along with DNN partitioning to optimize latency and accuracy within the available bandwidth constraints.
Although prior works have made significant contributions to model splitting in UE-cloud networks, they each focus on optimizing a single performance metric at a time, leaving room for a more holistic approach that jointly optimizes multiple metrics. Moreover, privacy concerns regarding offloading personal data to edge/cloud servers remain unaddressed. In Section \ref{sec:SystemArchitect}, we present our system architecture, which aims to bridge these gaps by providing a more comprehensive optimization strategy through privacy-aware model partitioning and multi-metric optimization.
\subsection{Throughput Estimation Techniques for Dynamic Networks}
\label{subsec:RelatedWorkThroughputEstimation}
% Tuan put 3 papers related here
Elsherbiny \textit{et al.}~\cite{Elsherbiny_Globecom2020_4G_throughput} studied 4G Long-Term Evolution (LTE) throughput prediction %using data from Kingston, Canada’s public transit.
%They compared Random Forest (RF) and SVR with ARIMA and LSTM, finding RF most accurate (R$^2$ = 0.78, RMSE = 8200) due to its generalization, while time series models lagged due to limited data.
using \textit{client-side metrics} including Reference Signal Received Power (RSRP), Received Signal Strength Indicator (RSSI), Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR). They noted coarse granularity (1 second) as a limitation. In our work, an xApp receives data from Near-RT RIC every 0.1 seconds and feeds it into the ML-based throughput estimator.
Minovski \textit{et al.}~\cite{Minovski_Thrput_TMC_2023} presented a comprehensive study on throughput prediction using ML in LTE and non-standalone (NSA) 5G networks. Their work leverages lower-layer radio metrics (e.g., RSSI, RSRP, SINR) to develop non-intrusive ML models, achieving prediction accuracies of 93\% (R$^2$) for LTE and 84\% (R$^2$) for 5G. %, with mean squared errors of 0.06 and 0.17, respectively.
However, this study is limited to NSA 5G and does not consider more challenging environments such as under jamming or interference, which our work will address to fill the gap and to have a more robust estimation.
Besides the radio measurement metrics as prior works, we observed that these metrics could fail to estimate throughput under challenging environments, as discussed in Section~\ref{sec:ThroughputEstimation}. We realize that IQ data from Physical (PHY) layer and other radio measurement metrics help boost accuracy of throughput estimation for both normal and challenging wireless environments.
IQ data has been used for anomaly detection, Zhou \textit{et al.}~\cite{zhou2021radio} proposed AI-based radio anomaly detection by processing IQ-based spectrogram images.
However, the evaluation relies on simulated Orthogonal Frequency-Division Multiplexing (OFDM) data, which lacks the complexity of real 5G signals with multiple physical channels.
For a challenging environment, Sciancalepore \textit{et al.} \cite{sciancalepore2023jamming} addressed the case of disrupting drone communication under jamming, where early detection of jamming is very important. Instead of observing consequent metrics (e.g., high %Bit-Error-Rate
BER, high SNR, or low Packet Delivery Rate--PDR) as post jamming, the authors used IQ samples from raw PHY layer, converted into black-white images, to detect jamming early in low-BLER, %using sparse autoencoders,
enabling early detection before link failure occurs.
Varotto \textit{et al.} \cite{varotto2024detecting} proposed an ML-based monitoring watchdog device under the 5G system to detect narrowband jammers, specifically targeting synchronization signal blocks (SSB).
%They evaluated CNN, k-NN, and SVM classifiers using spectrograms generated from IQ data in a USRP-based 5G testbed.
While achieving high detection accuracy with ML-based model with spectrograms from IQ data, the study only trained and tested with limited scenarios, and required deploying a monitoring device to detect jammers. In contrast, we introduce built-in spectrum sensing inside gNB to estimate throughput under various challenging wireless scenarios. % (e.g., jamming with wideband and narrow-band).
%\section{Problem statement }
%\subsection{Dynamic wireless channel conditions can lead to suboptimal performance on fixed ML Models}
%\textbf{Dynamic wireless channel conditions.} The reliability of 5G networks is heavily influenced by dynamic wireless conditions, which cause fluctuations in signal quality, latency, and overall system performance. One major challenge is interference from adjacent base stations and multiple UEs, which leads to increased network congestion and degraded data transmission. Additionally, UE mobility and environmental factors—such as moving between indoor and outdoor environments, traveling in vehicles, or experiencing varying line-of-sight conditions—further contribute to unstable connections and fluctuating signal strength. Another critical issue is jamming attacks, where adversaries deliberately disrupt 5G signals using techniques like barrage jamming (blocking entire frequency bands) or smart jamming (targeting specific data transmissions). [citation] These challenges lead to higher energy consumption due to frequent retransmissions, increased inference delays, and privacy risks, as sensitive intermediate data may be exposed when transmitted over unstable or compromised networks.
%\textbf{Fixed models only optimize in a certain scenario.}
%Latency, retransmission and energy consumption
%Fixed model partitioning generally assumes stable network conditions, optimizing for high throughput and low latency. However, in dynamic 5G environments, this approach often results in severe delays and increased energy consumption. When network conditions degrade, end-to-end (E2E) latency increases due to longer transmission times, queuing delays, and packet loss. This is particularly problematic for real-time applications like video analytics, AR/VR, and autonomous driving, where even slight delays can degrade performance or cause failures. Additionally, poor channel quality leads to higher transmit power, frequent packet retransmissions and error corrections, further increasing latency and draining device battery life, especially when transmitting large intermediate feature maps to the cloud.
%[ Add example of high BLER here]
% Privacy Risks:
%Certain fixed splitting points may require transmitting sensitive intermediate model outputs over the network, increasing the risk of privacy leakage. In the presence of eavesdroppers or jammers, adversaries could intercept these transmissions, reconstruct critical user data, or exploit vulnerabilities in AI inference pipelines, leading to potential breaches in applications like healthcare diagnostics or facial recognition.
% Because fixed model partitioning does not adapt to these changing conditions, it can result in poor AI performance, inefficient resource utilization, and reduced system reliability. inference even in highly variable 5G environments.
%\subsection{ Trade-offs in performance metrics for Model Partitioning}
%\section{AI-driven Spectrum Awareness}
%\mao{Thanh-Long:} Introduce a method to classify different wireless conditions:
%\begin{itemize}
% \item Perfect wireless condition
% \item Minor interference (i.e., less than 10\% BLER)
% \item Medium interference (i.e., 10\% to 50\% BLER)
%\end{itemize}
\section{Adaptive ML Model Partitioning}
\label{sec:SystemArchitect}
\begin{figure}[!t]% Use [t] or [b] for positioning
\centering\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{Figure/topo.pdf}
%\vspace{-8mm}
\vspace{-5mm}
\caption{System Architecture of Adaptive AI Model Partitioning over dynamic 5G channels with NVIDIA Aerial 5G Stack.}
\vspace{-3mm}
\label{fig:SystemArchitecture}
\end{figure}
%VGG Model, layers, potential splitting point
% Tam put the figure, and describe the components, introduce AF function to enable Adaptive ML Splitting
%First, we will describe the system architecture that enables the proposed solution. We then look into different key components of the systems.
Fig.~\ref{fig:SystemArchitecture} shows the system architecture of Adaptive AI model partitioning over dynamic 5G channels with NVIDIA Aerial 5G stack.
The Deep Neural Network (DNN) is partitioned into two components at the layer $l$, where:
\begin{itemize}
\item Head model (layer 1 to $l$) is executed on the UE.
\item Tail model (layer $l+1$ to $L$) is offloaded to Edge server.
\end{itemize}
During inference, intermediate features extracted by the head model are transmitted over a 5G network, which operates in a dynamic 5G wireless environment. To optimize performance under these conditions, the model can be dynamically partitioned at an optimal splitting point $l^*$, determined based on recommendations from the \textit{Application Function (AF)}, which leverages real-time network insights gathered from gNB, to ensure efficient and adaptive operation.
We utilize the 5G gNB---NVIDIA Aerial CUDA-Accelerated RAN, a commercial-grade, software-defined, and cloud-native framework designed for the deployment of 5G and future 6G radio access networks (RAN). This framework enables the concurrent execution of both AI inference and RAN processing on a shared GPU server, thereby optimizing resource utilization.
Additionally, we integrate the Aerial Data Lake, a data capture platform that facilitates the collection of radio frequency (RF) data from the Aerial CUDA-Accelerated RAN. IQ samples from O-RUs, along with associated channel information, are transmitted to the host CPU and subsequently exported to the Aerial Data Lake database for further analysis.
Building on this robust infrastructure, we developed the RAN Channel Sensing and Estimator, a critical tool that provides real-time insights into 5G signal conditions, which are leveraged by the \textit{AF} to drive dynamic optimization.
We will explore its adaptive decision-making process in greater depth later.
To simulate various channel conditions in a 5G network, we introduce three types of interference sources.
(i) A Keysight signal generator is used to produce different jamming signals.
(ii) An additional 5G base station is deployed as a neighboring cell, generating inter-cell interference to the target base station.
(iii) A neighboring UE is also configured to cause uplink interference to the same base station.
Experiments are conducted in both over-the-air (OTA) and conducted modes. In OTA testing, the setup is enclosed within a Faraday cage to isolate it from external interference. In conducted mode, interference signals are directly injected into the RF path using splitters, combiners, and attenuators placed between the UE and the gNB.
% The specific configuration varies depending on the mobility scenario being evaluated.
\section{AI-based Throughput Estimator}
\label{sec:ThroughputEstimation}
%\mao{Tuan:} First introduce a one-size-fits-all ML model for throughput estimation.
%Then, the R2 metric is highlighted as poor under some scenarios.
To decide which splitting point between UE and server is the best, the maximum achievable throughput of UE to upload data via 5G network is an important parameter.
We propose an AI-based throughput estimator that combines both numerical data of time series and image-based spectrogram.
%We use AI-driven spectrum classification to distinguish different wireless conditions.
%Introduce two-stage throughput estimation:
%\begin{itemize}
% \item Classifier to detect different wireless conditions (IQ-based): Due to space limitations, we just briefly explain the Classifier.
% \item Throughput Estimators for each condition.
%\end{itemize}
\subsection{Key Performance Metrics (KPMs) from previous work}
Minovski \textit{et al.} \cite{Minovski_Thrput_TMC_2023} used seven relevant radio measurements to estimate the guaranteed throughput for 5G NR: (1) RSRP, (2) RSRQ, (3) SINR, (4) P\_a (Power Adjustment), (5) RI (Rank Indicator), (6) CQI (Channel Quality Indicator), (7) CRI (CSI-RS Resource Indicator). Unlike \cite{Minovski_Thrput_TMC_2023}, we provide seamless integration by collecting these metrics on the gNB side, which does not require the UE to have additional software.
% While \cite{Minovski_Thrput_TMC_2023} did not explicitly mention the type of RSRP; two types of RSRP, i.e., SS-RSRP and CSI-RSRP \cite{3gpp_tr_38.215}, are considered in our work. While SS-RSRP is calculated based on the Secondary Synchronization Signal (SSS), CSI-RSRP is based on the Channel State Information Reference Signal (CSI-RS). This nature may lead to different results of throughput estimation in an interfered environment. As the SSB position is fixed and can be easily detected, frequency selective interference (FSI) can avoid the SSB while still affecting the actual throughput. CSI-RSRP, on the other hand, is harder to detect, so it provides a more robust way to estimate throughput. A similar idea is applied to RSRQ and SINR.
% Power Adjustment (P\_a) represents the power adjustment or reduction (in decibels, dB) applied to the user’s data symbols relative to the power of Reference Signals (RS). As part of the CSI report, Rank Indicator (RI) and Channel Quality Indicator (CQI) give information about the MIMO layer and the quality of the channel, respectively. gNB resources (e.g., different beams or antenna ports) can be split for best utilization, and CRI (CSI-RS Resource Indicator) is the way to index these resources. CSI report combines CRI and other KPMs, including RI, CQI, etc., to provide information for each gNB resource.
\subsection{Our proposed additional Key Performance Metrics (KPMs)}
% Besides the above KPMs, the SINR only captures a few reference resource elements (RE), while PUSCH/PDSCH channels cannot be reflected well by these metrics, especially for stealthy attacks which avoid reference signal RE. We also observe that UE's transmission power control (TPC) plays an important role in adapting to the noise/interference level. Besides PHY layer, we also include L2 metrics: UL-MCS/DL-MCS, UL-BLER/DL-BLER, PUSCH-HARQ-(0,1,2,3)/PDSCH-HARQ-(0,1,2,3). %, PUSCH-HARQ-1/PDSCH-HARQ-1, PUSCH-HARQ-2/PDSCH-HARQ-2, PUSCH-HARQ-3/PDSCH-HARQ-3.
Besides above KPMs, we consider eight more KPMs: (1) PUSCH-SINR/PDSCH-SINR, (2) Transmission Power Control (TPC), (3) UL-MCS/DL-MCS, (4) UL-BLER/DL-BLER, (5,6,7,8) PUSCH-HARQ-(0,1,2,3)/PDSCH-HARQ-(0,1,2,3).
%In addition to the mentioned KPMs, based on the control algorithm on gNB, we propose to use the following KPMs: (1) UE's Transmission Power Control (TPC), (2) PUSCH-SINR/PDSCH-SINR, (3) UL-MCS/DL-MCS, (4) UL-BLER/DL-BLER, (5) PUSCH-HARQ-0/PDSCH-HARQ-0, (6) PUSCH-HARQ-1/PDSCH-HARQ-1, (7) PUSCH-HARQ-2/PDSCH-HARQ-2, (8) PUSCH-HARQ-3/PDSCH-HARQ-3.
% \subsection{ }
Even including these additional numerical KPMs, we still observe that these metrics cannot well characterise the UE's UL throughput, especially under interference scenarios. To fill the gap, we make use of IQ data from the fronthaul interface in UL slots to capture the whole picture of the current channel state. In the subsequent paragraphs, we will outline our experimental approach and present our findings.
In our experiment, we use the \texttt{iPerf3} tool to measure the maximum achievable throughput between UE and Edge server under incremental noise levels, shown as ``Max Throughput'' lines in Fig.~\ref{fig:gNB_highload} and~\ref{fig:gNB_lowload}. We then repeat the process with a change in target throughput of \texttt{iPerf3} to have two different scenarios: (1) high UL load (\texttt{iPerf3} bandwidth is set to 128 Mbps) and (2) low UL load (\texttt{iPerf3} bandwidth is set to 1 Mbps). KPMs are also recorded for both scenarios.
%30 seconds to stabilize the UL traffic.
%To evaluate the impact of interference on the additional KPMs, we set up a UE running an \texttt{iperf3} client that generates UL traffic to an \texttt{iperf3} server hosted on the Edge server.
%Interference levels are incrementally adjusted from low to high to observe their corresponding effects.
%For each interference power level, the system is configured to operate for 30 seconds to ensure sufficient time for the network to adapt and react to changing conditions. KPMs, on the other hand, are collected at a sampling rate of 10 Hz.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
% Row 1: gNB control scenarios (Vertical stack)
\begin{subfigure}[b]{1.0\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Figure/gNB_control_128Mbps.pdf}
\caption{High-load scenario (\texttt{iPerf3} bandwidth is set to 128 Mbps)}
\label{fig:gNB_highload}
\end{subfigure}
%\vspace{0.5em}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{1\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Figure/gNB_control_1Mbps.pdf}
\caption{Low-load scenario (\texttt{iPerf3} bandwidth is set to 1 Mbps)}
\label{fig:gNB_lowload}
\end{subfigure}
% \vspace{1em}
% Row 2: Four small spectrogram subfigures in a row
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.22\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Figure/spectrogram_-60_0dBm.pdf}
\caption{-60.0 dBm}
\label{fig:Spectrogram_60}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.22\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Figure/spectrogram_-30_0dBm.pdf}
\caption{-30.0 dBm}
\label{fig:Spectrogram_30}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.22\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Figure/spectrogram_-15_0dBm.pdf}
\caption{-15.0 dBm}
\label{fig:Spectrogram_15}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.22\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Figure/spectrogram_-9_0dBm.pdf}
\caption{-9.0 dBm}
\label{fig:Spectrogram_9}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Correlation between our proposed additional KPMs and UL maximum achievable throughput under different interference levels (a,b).
Example spectrograms of UL slots at different noise levels (c,d,e,f).}
\label{fig:Correlation_KPM_throughput}
\vspace{-5mm}
\end{figure}
Fig.~\ref{fig:gNB_highload} shows the correlation between uplink KPMs (UE's TPC, PUSCH SNR, UL MCS, and UL BLER) and UL maximum achievable throughput under varying interference levels.
%power varies in two cases: high-load (upper figure), low-load (lower figure). In the high-load scenario, the iperf3 client shall request the highest throughput provided by the system. In the low-load case, the target throughput is set to 1 Mbps. As shown in figure \ref{fig:gNB_control_combined}, the uplink control process includes 4 regions: (1) Negligible Noise, (2) Power Control, (3) MCS Control, (4) Out of Control.
When the noise power is under \textit{Negligible Noise} zone (i.e., red shaded area), the maximum UL throughput is at its peak.
When the interference power is under UE's \textit{Power Control} zone, the gNB instructs the UE to increase transmission power (via TPC) to maintain SINR at the target level.
However, if the interference power is increased further into \textit{MCS Control} zone (i.e., green shaded area), either the gNB RX antenna sensitivity is saturated or UE's power headroom reaches the minimum, the gNB responds by lowering the UL MCS to maintain UL BLER stable at the target value.
When the interference power further increases to the \textit{Out of Control (OOC)} zone (i.e., violet shaded area), the UL BLER rises sharply, as no further adjustments can be made to maintain signal quality or UL throughput.
However, for low-load scenario in Fig.~\ref{fig:gNB_lowload}, there is low correlation between these metrics and UL throughput. Especially under \textit{Power Control} zone, the maximum achievable throughput drops significantly while the values of KPMs remain unchanged.
This is because KPMs are obtained based on only a small portion of PRBs allocated for transmission (the first few PRBs in Fig.~\ref{fig:Spectrogram_60}), which are not affected by interference.
% As a result, the KPMs (PUSCH SINR, UL MCS, UL BLER) maintain high values.
To address this, we use the spectrogram from fronthaul IQ data (see Figs.~\ref{fig:Spectrogram_9}, \ref{fig:Spectrogram_15}, \ref{fig:Spectrogram_30}, \ref{fig:Spectrogram_60}) to capture the channel conditions.
%As shown in the upper figure of Fig. \ref{fig:gNB_control_combined}, in the Negligible Noise region, the maximum throughput reaches its peak as the system operates under good conditions. As noise power increases, the gNB enters the Power Control region. In this region, the gNB control the transmission power of the UE to keep SINR at the target level. However, this compensation only works effectively up to the physical limitation of gNB, where it cannot receive a stronger signal. Once this limit is reached and the noise continues to rise, the gNB responds by lowering the UL MCS to keep UL BLER stable at the target level in the MCS Control region. This adjustment continues until UL MCS also hits its minimum threshold. Beyond this point, the UL BLER begins to rise sharply, as no further feature adjustments (Out of Control region) can be made to maintain signal quality or throughput.
%The upper figure of Fig. \ref{fig:gNB_control_combined} highlights how Power Control and UL MCS can be adjusted to maintain maximum throughput until both reach their respective limits. Once these thresholds are crossed, UL BLER increases rapidly, and maximum throughput continues to decrease. While the upper figure shows a strong relationship between Power Control, UL PUSCH SNR, UL MCS, UL BLER and maximum throughput in the high-load scenario, the lower figure shows that this relationship decreases as the system load decreases. This can be observed from the MCS control region of the lower figure where maximum throughput deceased while other KPMs almost do not change. Moreover, it can be seen that the position and the size of each region also change as the system load changes.
In case that BLER reaches 100\% (see the tail of Fig.~\ref{fig:gNB_highload} under the \textit{OOC} zone), we propose to use HARQ-RV (Redundant Version) counters of a transport block (TB) to capture throughput. The BLER is calculated as the ratio between two increments: the increment of HARQ-1 over the increment of HARQ-0. Therefore, even if BLER reaches 100\%, gNB and UE can still communicate using the remaining RVs (2,3). As a result, tracking the changes of HARQ counters helps to estimate the maximum achievable throughput.
%\subsection{Spectrum Sensing}
%Besides the above KPMs, to tackle with low-load scenario, we also include PUSCH IQ data into input features for estimating maximum achievable throughput. In an interfered environment, ML can look at unused Resource Element Groups (REGs) of the UL slot to check for any abnormality. As the gNB actively controls the resource allocated for each UE (PRB, symbols), the ML model, which can access gNB data, can identify the unused region in the resource grid. IQ-based and CSI-RS are the two inputs used to estimate maximum throughput under an interfered environment.
\subsection{ML Model Architecture for Throughput Estimator}
\label{subsec:Proposed_ML_throughput_Estimator}
Our input features include two categories: (i) numerical data (e.g., RSRP, RSRQ, SINR, CQI, RI, PHR, MCS, BLER, etc.) with temporal correlation, and (ii) image-based from IQ-data.
Fig.~\ref{fig:throughput_estimator_model} shows our proposed ML model architecture for the throughput estimator, which includes two branches.
In branch 1, an LSTM model (with hidden size=124, window=30) is used to capture the temporal relation of numerical KPMs.
In branch 2, a CNN (shown in Table~\ref{tab:cnn_architecture}) is used to extract spatial features (e.g., patterns in 2D data), %and reduces dimensionality,
producing a representational vector that captures throughput and wireless conditions.
% Stage 1 is a regression task that predicts the next radio measurement metrics based on a window $W$ of recent historical radio measurement metrics.
% After training the stage 1, the LSTM model is frozen and used for training and inference of stage 2 whose task is to predict the maximum achievable throughput.
% We combine the output of hidden units of LSTM and the average of a spectrogram of the $W$ samples of IQ data.
Finally, we compute the weighted sum of the outputs from spatial (CNN) and temporal (LSTM) features, which are then fed into a final fully connected (FC) layer to perform a regression task that estimates throughput. The weight is the ratio of gNB-allocated resources to the UE and total available resources.
% , making the model based on IQ data in the low throughput case.
% usWe compute the weighted sum of outputs from spatial (CNN) and temporal (LSTM) features, which we then input into a fully connected (FC) layer for throughput regression.ing a fully connected layer. The proposed CNN model is described in Table~\ref{tab:cnn_architecture}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{Figure/TP_Estimator_Model.pdf}
\caption{AI-based model architecture for throughput estimator.}
\label{fig:throughput_estimator_model}
\end{figure}
% Preprocess Channel UL slot: Preprocess the un-used UL slot to reduce the size and convert it to a real-valued array
\begin{table}[!t]
\centering
\caption{Architecture of CNN model for IQ-based input.}
\label{tab:cnn_architecture}
\begin{tabular}{l l}
\toprule
\textbf{Layers} & \textbf{Output Shape} \\
\midrule
Input & $(N, 2, 273 \cdot 12 , 14)$ \\
Conv2d | Relu & $(N, 16, 3276, 14)$ \\
%2 & ReLU & $(N, 16, 3276, 14)$ \\
MaxPool2d & $(N, 16, 1638, 7)$ \\
Conv2d | Relu & $(N, 32, 1638, 7)$ \\
%5 & ReLU & $(N, 32, 1638, 7)$ \\
MaxPool2d & $(N, 32, 819, 3)$ \\
Flatten & $(N, 32 \cdot 819 \cdot 3)$ \\
Linear | Relu | Dropout & $(N, \text{hidden\_size})$ \\
%9 & ReLU & $(N, \text{hidden\_size})$ \\
%10 & Dropout & $(N, \text{hidden\_size})$ \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\vspace{-5mm}
\end{table}
\section{Adaptive ML Partitioning Algorithm}
%\mao{Tam \& Yong-Hao:} propose a multi-objective optimization problem with jointly 3 variables.
%\subsection{Proposed Comprehensive ML Splitting Algorithm}
% Tam
Prior work typically optimizes a single metric, such as latency, as the primary objective, overlooking the interplay of multiple considerations. In contrast, we propose a comprehensive approach that jointly considers three critical metrics—latency, privacy, and energy.
%\subsection{Metrics}
%We will consider following performance metrics:
% Yong-Hao:
In Adaptive ML splitting enabled by throughput estimator over dynamic 5G networks, optimising the following three objective functions is critical for efficient and privacy-preserving inference offloading:
%Let the DNN model be split at the layer $l$, where:
%\begin{itemize}
% \item Head model (layer 1 to $l$) is executed on the UE.
% \item Tail model (layer $l+1$ to $L$) is offloaded to the Edge/Cloud server.
%\end{itemize}
%We define the following three objectives:
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{E2E delay ($D_{E2E}$)}: The total time required for a given inference task, including (i) local computing at the UE $d_{\text{UE}}$, (ii) transmission latency of intermediate features $d_{\text{TRX}}$, and (iii) remote inference time at the edge/cloud $d_{\text{ser}}$; $D_{E2E}(l, TP)=d_{\text{UE}}(l) +d_{\text{TRX}} (l, TP) +d{\text{ser}} (l)$, where $TP$ is the bandwidth between the UE and the Edge.
\item \textbf{Privacy Leakage ($P$)}: The sensitivity of the data, quantified using distance correlation $\rho$ \cite{nopeek} between the original input image and the transmitted intermediate layer. \textit{Lower values of $\rho$ indicate better privacy protection}.
\item \textbf{UE's energy consumption ($E_{\text{UE}}$)}: The energy consumed by the UE to process the Head model before transmitting the intermediate features. For a CPU, this is computed using the power drawn during inference, with the thermal design power (TDP) per thread serving as the average power consumption, $E_{\text{UE}} = TDP / \text{threads} \cdot t$.
% For an NVIDIA GPU, energy consumption is monitored using the \textit{pynvml} library.
\end{itemize}
%\subsection{ML Partitioning Algorithm}
Our objective is to \textit{jointly} optimize these three metrics by \textit{determining the optimal splitting point $l^*$} of the ML model between the UE and edge/cloud, %, and the transmission parameters (e.g., bandwidth allocation, power control).%, and (iii) adaptive compression strategies for feature maps.
%The objective is to find the optimal layer $l^*$
that minimizes the weighted sum of E2E latency, privacy risk, and energy consumption:
\begin{equation}
l^* = \arg \min_{l \in \{1, \dots, L\}} F(l,TP)
\end{equation}
where the objective function is :
\begin{equation}
F(l,TP) = w_1 D_{\text{E2E}}(l, TP) + w_2 P(l) + w_3 E_{\text{UE}}(l)
\label{eq:ObjectiveFunction}
\end{equation}
and weighting parameters \( w_1 \), \( w_2 \), and \( w_3 \) are designed to normalize these metrics, ensuring balanced contributions to \( F(l, TP) \).
% Specifically, \( w_1 \) scales latency (typically 100--400 ms) to a comparable range as \( P(l) \), while \( w_3 \) adjusts energy (0.0001--0.003 Wh) to align with the other terms, enabling fair optimization across heterogeneous constraints.
The problem is subject to the following constraints:
\begin{align}
D_{\text{E2E}} &\leq \tau_{\max}
\quad \text{(Latency Constraint)} \nonumber \\
P = \rho &\leq \rho_{\max}
\quad \text{(Privacy Constraint)} \nonumber \\
E_{\text{UE}} &\leq E_{\max}
\quad \text{(Energy Constraint)} \nonumber
\end{align}
%\begin{itemize}
% \item \textit{Exhaustive Search }(brute force): this is feasible for small models but inefficient for deep networks with many layers.
% \item \textit{Greedy Heuristic approach}: Instead of checking all layers, we can iteratively adjust $l$ based on improvement criteria. This approach reduces computational complexity while still finding a near-optimal solution.
%\item \textit{Dynamic Programming (DP) for Efficient Selection}
%\end{itemize}
In a dynamic 5G environment, fluctuating throughput \( TP \) reported by the RAN poses challenges for maintaining acceptable latency, privacy protection, and energy efficiency while optimizing inference performance. The frequent variations in \( TP \) necessitate rapid selection of the optimal splitting point \( l^* \).
%To enable this,
We construct a lookup table that precomputes and stores \( l^* \) for each (rounded in Mbps) \( TP \in \{1, \dots, TP_{max}\}\), where $TP_{max}$ is the maximum theoretical UE's throughput. This allows the \textit{AF} to retrieve \( l^* \) in constant time.
We propose the Pre-filtered Split Optimization (PSO) algorithm, detailed in Algorithm~\ref{alg:PFBSO}.
For each UE, given the maximum achievable throughput reported by the RAN's Throughput Estimator (proposed in Sec.~\ref{subsec:Proposed_ML_throughput_Estimator}), the \textit{AF} can efficiently select the optimal splitting point using the corresponding lookup table obtained from Algorithm~\ref{alg:PFBSO}.
%\if 0
\SetAlFnt{\small}
\begin{algorithm}[!t]
\caption{Pre-Filtered Split Optimization (PSO)}
\label{alg:PFBSO}
\KwIn{
Set of UEs $\mathcal{U}$, candidate splitting points $l \in \{1, \dots, L_u\}$, each with: privacy $P_u(l)$, energy $E_{\text{UE},u}(l)$, processing delays $d_{\text{UE,u}}(l), d_{\text{ser}}(l)$, intermediate data size $\text{data\_size}_u(l)$; \\
UE throughput range $TP_u \in \{1, \dots, TP_{\max,u}\}$; \\
Constraints: $\tau_{\max,u}$, $\rho_{\max,u}$, $E_{\max,u}$
}
\KwOut{A set of $\{\text{LookupTable}_u\}_{u \in \mathcal{U}}$ mapping throughput $TP_u$ to optimal splitting point $l^*$.}
\For{ each UE $u \in \mathcal{U}$ }{
Initialize feasible set $\mathcal{L} \gets \emptyset$
% \tcp*{Filter based on static constraints}
\For{$l \in \{1, \dots, L_u\}$}{
\If{$P_u(l) \leq \rho_{\max,u}$ \textbf{and} $E_{\text{UE},u}(l) \leq E_{\max,u}$}{
Compute minimal required throughput $TP_{\min,u}(l) \gets \dfrac{\text{data\_size}_u(l)}{\tau_{\max,u} - d_{\text{UE,u}}(l) - d_{\text{ser}}(l)}$\\
% \If{$TP_{\min}(l) \leq TP_{\max}$}{
$\mathcal{L} \gets \mathcal{L} \cup \{(l, TP_{\min,u}(l))\}$
% }
}
}
Initialize $\text{LookupTable}_u$ $\gets \emptyset$
\For{$TP \in \{1, \dots, TP_{\max,u}\}$}{
Identify feasible splits at this $TP$: \\
$\hat{\mathcal{L}} \gets \{l \mid (l, TP_{\min,u}(l)) \in \mathcal{L},\ TP_{\min,u}(l) \leq TP\}$\\
% $\hat{\mathcal{L}} \gets \{l \mid (l, t) \in \mathcal{L},\ TP \geq t\}$
\If{$\hat{\mathcal{L}} \neq \emptyset$}{
% For each $l \in \hat{\mathcal{L}}$, compute $d_{\text{trx}}(l, TP) = \text{data\_size}(l) / TP$ \\
% Compute $D_{\text{E2E}}(l, TP) = d_{\text{ue}}(l) + d_{\text{ser}}(l) + d_{\text{trx}}(l, TP)$ \\
Select $l^* \gets \arg\min_{l \in \hat{\mathcal{L}}} F(l, TP)$ \\
Add $(TP, l^*)$ to $\text{LookupTable}_u$
}
}
Add $\text{LookupTable}_u$ to $\{\text{LookupTable}_u\}$
}
\Return $\{\text{LookupTable}_u\}_{u \in \mathcal{U}}$
\end{algorithm}
\section{Experimental Setup and Results}
\label{sec:ExperimentalResults}
\subsection{Experimental Setup}
%\mao{Tam Experimental Setup for Different Scenarios}
For AI-based image analysis, we used VGG16 model~\cite{simonyan2014vgg}, known for its simplicity and strong classification performance, and divided it into two components for optimized deployment over 5G network:
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{Head model}: Deployed on the 5G UE. A virtual machine with 4GB RAM and 2 CPU cores simulates the limited resources of a mobile device. This VM is connected—via pass-through mode—to either a Pegatron 5G dongle or the Keysight UE-SIM to access the 5G wireless channel.
\item \textbf{Tail model}: Hosted on a high-performance GPU server with 512GB of RAM, and 2x NVIDIA A40 GPUs.
\end{itemize}
VGG16 offers 43 potential splitting points, corresponding to outputs after each layer or sub-layer (e.g., convolutions, ReLU, or pooling). These points enable analysis of intermediate outputs, including their size and distance correlation with the input. For each splitting point $l$, we processed 200 images from the ImageNet dataset to evaluate characteristics of $P(l)$ and $E_\text{UE}(l)$.
To evaluate the performance of the proposed Adaptive Splitting mechanisms (hosted in AF), we conducted experiments under normal scenario and three interference scenarios:
%. The primary focus was on the desired uplink signal, as the machine learning (ML) model requires data transmission to the server.
%\begin{itemize}
% \item
1) \textbf{S1: Jamming Interference:}
As in Fig.~\ref{fig:sce1}, a Signal Generator acts as a jammer. The uplink (UL) signal transmitted from the UE to the BS was affected by abnormal external interference, leading to significant UL performance degradation.
2) \textbf{S2: UE-to-BS Interference (Co-Channel Interference):}
As in Fig.~\ref{fig:sce2}, an UL from a UE to its serving BS was influenced by another UE connected to a nearby BS. The unwanted signal introduced interference in the uplink of the primary UE, leading to \textit{co-channel interference (CCI)}.
% and degrading network performance.
3) \textbf{S3: BS-to-BS Interference (TDD Pattern Mismatch):}
As in Figure~\ref{fig:sce3}, the right-hand interfering cell uses a heavy DL profile, while the left-hand victim cell is optimized for UL-dominant use cases. %A1, A2, A4, and A5 attenuators were incorporated to calibrate the path loss, ensuring both UEs operated at peak performance.
%When interference was introduced, the A3 attenuator was adjusted to a suitable level interfering the victim cell.
The mismatch in TDD patterns resulted in overlapping downlink (D) and uplink (U) time slots, leading to UL performance degradation in the victim cell.
%\end{itemize}
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.32\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Figure/sce1.pdf}
\caption{S1: Jamming}
\label{fig:sce1}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.31\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Figure/sce2.pdf}
\caption{S2: UE-to-BS}
\label{fig:sce2}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.31\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Figure/sce3.pdf}
\caption{S3: BS-to-BS}
\label{fig:sce3}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Setup of different interference scenarios.}
\label{fig:interference_scenarios}
\end{figure}
\if 0
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{Figure/sce1.pdf}
\caption{Scenario 3: Jamming Interference}
\label{fig:enter-label}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{Figure/sce2.pdf}
\caption{Scenario 3: BS-to-BS Interference}
\label{fig:sce3}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{Figure/sce3.pdf}
\caption{Scenario 2: UE-to-BS Interference}
\label{fig:sce3}
\end{figure}
\fi
\subsection{Results and Analysis for Throughput Estimator}
% \textbf{Throughput Estimation results}
Table~\ref{tab:model_performance} presents the $R^2$ score and $RMSE$ of three ML models in low-load scenario under interfered environment with different kinds of input features.
% (A) LSTM model with time series numerical metrics only as input, (B) CNN model with IQ data input feature only, and (C) Proposed model (in Sec.~\ref{subsec:Proposed_ML_throughput_Estimator}) with combination of time series and IQ data.
As shown in the table, we significantly enhanced the performance of XGBoost by adding eight features.
In our proposed Model C, we combine representations of KPMs and IQ data, and achieve the best $R^2$ score of 0.9636, and the lowest $RMSE$ value on the test set.
%On the other hand, by including IQ data as input, our model C achieved the best $R^2$ score and the lowest $RMSE$ value on the test set.
% Model A, based on timeseries of numerical KPMs which is considered as a baseline model ~\cite{Minovski_Thrput_TMC_2023}, shows the second best model.
%performance of the throughput estimator on the test dataset, based on the architectures described in Section \ref{sec:ThroughputEstimation}. The table reports the $R^2$ score for each model after 1000 training iterations. Notably, incorporating a CNN into the model significantly enhances the $R^2$ score, demonstrating improved predictive accuracy.
% \vspace{20pt} % Adjust the value as needed
\begin{table}[!t]
\centering
\caption{Model Performance Comparison}
\label{tab:model_performance}
\begin{tabular}{llcc}
\toprule
\textbf{Model} & \textbf{Input features} & $R^2$ & $RMSE$ \\
\midrule
A: XGBoost~\cite{Minovski_Thrput_TMC_2023} & 7 KPMs \cite{Minovski_Thrput_TMC_2023} & 0.3160 & 10.7748 \\
B: XGBoost & 15 KPMs (+8 proposed KPMs) & 0.7845 & 6.0478 \\
% C: LSTM & Timeseries data only & 0.6488 & 7.7200 \\
% D: CNN & IQ data only & 0.9444 & 3.0726 \\
C: Proposal & Timeseries (15 KPMs) + IQ & \textbf{0.9636} & \textbf{2.4839} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\vspace{-5mm}
\end{table}
% \begin{figure}
% \centering
% \includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{Figure/estimator_result.png}
% \caption{Results of Throughput Estimator}
% \label{fig:throughput_estimator_result}
% \end{figure}
\subsection{Results for Adaptive AI Splitting Algorithm}
%\textbf{Different networks conditions}
%Compared adaptive vs fixed splitting point:
We first analyze single metric—E2E delay, Privacy, or UE's energy consumption of the objective function, and how they contribute to the joint objective function. This approach provides deeper insights into model behaviour when it is split.
\begin{figure*}[htbp]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.24\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Figure/F_Thoughput.pdf}
\caption{E2E delay $D_\text{E2E}(l, TP)$}
\label{fig:F_vs_splittingPoint_latency_focus}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.24\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Figure/F_privacy.pdf}
\caption{Privacy Leakage $P(l)$}
\label{fig:F_vs_splittingPoint_privacy_focus}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
%\vspace{0.5em} % Vertical spacing between rows
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.24\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Figure/F_Energy.pdf}
\caption{UE's Energy $E_\text{UE}(l)$}
\label{fig:F_vs_splittingPoint_energy_focus}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.24\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Figure/OptimalSplitPoint_Subplots.pdf} %
\caption{Jointly optimize three metrics}
\label{fig:F_vs_l_combination}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Objective function $F(\ell, TP)$ vs. splitting point $\ell$ under various optimization focuses, i.e., different weighting parameters.}
\vspace{-5mm}\label{fig:combined_F_vs_splittingPoint}
\end{figure*}
Under the \textit{E2E delay-only} objective ($w_1=1, w_2=w_3=0$), we simulate three throughput conditions: (i) 60 Mbps---excellent signal quality; (ii) 30 Mbps---stable network condition; and (iii) 15 Mbps---degraded signal quality or high interference. As shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:F_vs_splittingPoint_latency_focus},
occasional drops in latency can be observed at certain splitting points. These are primarily attributed to the data output from \textit{MaxPooling} layers, which reduce the feature map size and consequently lower the transmission cost. The red stars indicate the splitting points where the E2E latency is minimized for each throughput condition.
Under the \textit{Privacy-only} objective, %($w_1=0, w_2=1, w_3=0$), %we analyze how the F-value—representing the trade-off between utility and privacy leakage—varies with different split points.
Fig.~\ref{fig:F_vs_splittingPoint_privacy_focus} shows a clear downward trend of privacy leakage; the privacy score is highest near the input layers and gradually decreases as the model is split deeper. A sharp decline occurs around splitting point \textit{25}, with further reductions and stabilization observed in the later stages. The minimum privacy leakage highlighted by red-circled points, appear at splitting points \textit{25}, \textit{38}, and \textit{43}, where values drop to approximately 0.21–0.22. This indicates that deeper splitting points are more effective at preserving privacy, likely due to the increasingly abstract nature of the features, which reduces the risk of leaking sensitive input information.
Under the \textit{Energy-only} objective%($w_1=0, w_2=1, w_3=0$)
,Fig.~\ref{fig:F_vs_splittingPoint_energy_focus}, the Energy of UE increases consistently as the splitting point moves deeper, indicating higher energy consumption. The lowest values, highlighted by red circles, occur at splitting points $1$, $2$, and $3$, suggesting that early splits are the most energy-efficient.
% Figure~\ref{fig:PFBSOvsBF} compares the elapsed time for finding the optimal splitting point using Algorithm PFBSO and brute force method. With 43 splitting point candidates and 100 Mbps maximum bandwidth, PFBSO takes 111.21 ms, while brute force requires 201.41 ms, a 44.78\% improvement. This efficiency, driven by PFBSO’s pre-filtering, supports real-time split point adaptation in dynamic 5G environments.
% \begin{figure}
% \centering
% \includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{Figure/build_time.pdf}
% \caption{PFBSO vs Brute-force Search Time Comparison}
% \label{fig:PFBSOvsBF}
% \end{figure}
To jointly optimize the objective function for different strategies, we set the target constraints $\tau_{\max}$, $\rho_{\max}$, and $E_{\max}$ according to the specific metric we aim to prioritize. Figure~\ref{fig:F_vs_l_combination} illustrates how the optimal splitting point varies depending on the chosen optimization focus.
% Fig.~\ref{fig:F_vs_l_combination} shows the varying trends of the optimal splitting point under different optimization focus strategies.
In the \textit{E2E delay-focused} case, the optimal splitting point shifts progressively from around 7 to 14, then 24, and finally to 34 as the throughput decreases, which aligns with the \textit{red star} points in Fig.~\ref{fig:F_vs_splittingPoint_latency_focus}. %This progression corresponds to the positions of MaxPooling layers, where intermediate feature sizes are reduced—significantly lowering the transmission cost and making deeper splitting points more favorable.
The \textit{Privacy-focused} strategy tends to keep the splitting point deeper in the ML model. %, as performing more computation locally better preserves sensitive information.
In contrast, \textit{energy-focused} strategy (i.e., green dotted line) pushes the splitting point earlier to reduce on-device computation and conserve energy.
% Compared to the \textit{E2E delay-focused} strategy,
% The \textit{E2E delay-Privacy-focused} strategy avoids early split points to preserve privacy.
%For the \textit{Privacy-Energy} strategy (i.e., violet dashed line in Fig.~\ref{fig:F_vs_l_combination}), the splitting point remains constant since this strategy is not sensitive to throughput. %, it strikes a balance between preserving privacy and minimizing energy consumption.
Finally, the \textit{E2E delay-Privacy-Energy} combination strategy finds a middle ground between all three metrics, resulting in a dynamic but balanced shift of the optimal splitting point.
Under very low throughput conditions, some strategies fail to find the optimal point, as shown missing early part of some lines in Fig.~\ref{fig:F_vs_l_combination}.
%are missing because the throughput cannot satisfy the constraints, making the split infeasible.
Fig.~\ref{fig:FixedVsAdaptive} shows a comparison between Fixed Splitting and Adaptive Splitting under different wireless conditions, in terms of three metrics.
We can see under \textit{No Interference} scenario, the two methods obtained the same performance on three metrics.
%In the Fixed mode, the model is consistently executed at a pre-selected optimal split point. In contrast, the Adaptive mode dynamically adjusts the splitting point based on real-time decisions from the AF.
%As in Fig.~\ref{fig:FixedVsAdaptive}, without interference, both Fixed and Adaptive Splitting yield identical end-to-end (E2E) delay, demonstrating that the application function does not affect system performance when no interference is present.
However, under three interference scenarios, Adaptive Splitting significantly reduces E2E delay with minimal impact on privacy, but the trade-off is
%a slight reduction of privacy and
an increase of UE energy.
Under \textit{Jamming} scenario, E2E delay decreases from 1,657\,ms to 589\,ms, achieving \textbf{64.45\%} reduction. For \textit{UE-to-BS Int.} and \textit{BS-to-BS Int.} scenarios, E2E delay is improved by 37.39\% and 56.67\%, respectively.
%reduced from 706 ms to 442 ms, yielding a \textbf{37.39\%} improvement,
%While in \textit{BS-to-BS Int} scenario, Adaptive Splitting lowers the delay from 900 ms to 390 ms, leading to a \textbf{56.67\%} reduction.
In summary, the proposed Adaptive Splitting is highly effective in reducing E2E delay under interference conditions while incurring an increase in UE Energy due to more computation on UE. %executed at UE.
%but it does not provide additional benefits when interference is absent.
%
% Due to the privacy constraint, the updated splitting point exhibits similar performance to the previous one. However,
%Note that, this improvement comes at the cost of nearly doubling the energy consumption at the UE side.
% {"tau_max": 1000.0, "rho_max": 0.5, "e_max": 0.003, "label": "E2E Latency Focused"},
% {"tau_max": 2000.0, "rho_max": 0.25, "e_max": 10.0, "label": "Privacy Focused"},
% {"tau_max": 2000.0, "rho_max": 0.5, "e_max": 0.0015, "label": "Energy Focused"},
% {"tau_max": 1200.0, "rho_max": 0.45, "e_max": 10.0, "label": "E2E Latency-Privacy Focused"},
% {"tau_max": 20200.0, "rho_max": 0.45, "e_max": 0.0018, "label": "Privacy-Energy Focused"},
% {"tau_max": 1300.0, "rho_max": 0.48, "e_max": 0.0025, "label": "E2E Latency-Privacy-Energy"},
% \begin{figure}
% \centering
% \includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{Figure/OptimalSplitPoint_Subplots.pdf}
% \caption{Enter Caption}
% \label{fig:enter-label}
% \end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{Figure/e2e_delay_privacy_energy_subplot.pdf}
\caption{Comparison between Fixed vs. Adaptive Splitting under different scenarios, in terms of E2E delay, Privacy, UE Energy.}
\vspace{-5mm}
\label{fig:FixedVsAdaptive}
\end{figure}
% \begin{figure}
% \centering
% \includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{Figure/Combined_RadarCharts_GlobalNorm.pdf}
% \caption{Metrics under different throughput}
% \label{fig:enter-label}
% \end{figure}
%\section{Future Works}
\section{Conclusion}
\label{sec:conclusion}
In this paper, we have presented a comprehensive ML-partitioning algorithm jointly optimizing three objectives (privacy, E2E delay, energy consumed by UE). We also investigated different input features for throughput estimators under challenging wireless environment, and include IQ-based spectrogram image to the proposed ML-based throughput estimator. %Subsequently, we design a reference system architecture for splitting AI model between UE and Edge server over 5G networks.
Our evaluation of the proposed solution on a testbed running NVIDIA Aerial 5G stack demonstrates promising results.
%Compress intermediate features before uploading? But reduce accuracy. Can use DRL
%In our future work, we will consider a Comprehensive power measurement which include both UE's processing and transmission power. Additionally, we are going to evaluate splitting for multiple DL models for the same task, introducing a varying accuracy that can be tuned for various wireless conditions.
%\section*{Acknowledgment}
\textbf{Acknowledgment}:
This research is supported in part by the National Research Foundation (NRF), Singapore and Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) under its Future Communications Research \& Development Programme, and in part by the SNS JU project 6G-GOALS under the EU's Horizon program (Grant Agreement No. 101139232). Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of NRF and IMDA Singapore, or the European Union.
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
\bibliography{references}
\end{document}
% Generated by IEEEtran.bst, version: 1.14 (2015/08/26)
\begin{thebibliography}{10}
\providecommand{\url}[1]{#1}
\csname url@samestyle\endcsname
\providecommand{\newblock}{\relax}
\providecommand{\bibinfo}[2]{#2}
\providecommand{\BIBentrySTDinterwordspacing}{\spaceskip=0pt\relax}
\providecommand{\BIBentryALTinterwordstretchfactor}{4}
\providecommand{\BIBentryALTinterwordspacing}{\spaceskip=\fontdimen2\font plus
\BIBentryALTinterwordstretchfactor\fontdimen3\font minus
\fontdimen4\font\relax}
\providecommand{\BIBforeignlanguage}[2]{{%
\expandafter\ifx\csname l@#1\endcsname\relax
\typeout{** WARNING: IEEEtran.bst: No hyphenation pattern has been}%
\typeout{** loaded for the language `#1'. Using the pattern for}%
\typeout{** the default language instead.}%
\else
\language=\csname l@#1\endcsname
\fi
#2}}
\providecommand{\BIBdecl}{\relax}
\BIBdecl
\bibitem{simonyan2014vgg}
K.~Simonyan and A.~Zisserman, ``Very deep convolutional networks for
large-scale image recognition,'' in \emph{ICLR}, 2015.
\bibitem{neurosurgeon}
Y.~Kang, J.~Hauswald, C.~Gao, A.~Rovinski, T.~Mudge, J.~Mars, and L.~Tang,
``{Neurosurgeon: Collaborative Intelligence Between the Cloud and Mobile
Edge},'' \emph{ACM SIGPLAN Notices}, vol.~52, 04 2017.
\bibitem{boomerang}
L.~Zeng, E.~Li, Z.~Zhou, and X.~Chen, ``{Boomerang: On-Demand Cooperative Deep
Neural Network Inference for Edge Intelligence on the Industrial Internet of
Things},'' \emph{IEEE Network}, vol.~33, no.~5, 2019.
\bibitem{jointDnn}
A.~Eshratifar, M.~Abrishami, and M.~Pedram, ``{JointDNN: An Efficient Training
and Inference Engine for Intelligent Mobile Cloud Computing Services},''
\emph{IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing}, vol.~20, no.~2, 2021.
\bibitem{jalad}
H.~Li, C.~Hu, J.~Jiang, Z.~Wang, Y.~Wen, and W.~Zhu, ``{JALAD: Joint
Accuracy-And Latency-Aware Deep Structure Decoupling for Edge-Cloud
Execution},'' in \emph{IEEE ICPADS}, 2018.
\bibitem{auto-split}
A.~Banitalebi-Dehkordi, N.~Vedula, J.~Pei, F.~Xia, L.~Wang, and Y.~Zhang,
``{Auto-Split: A General Framework of Collaborative Edge-Cloud AI},'' in
\emph{Proc. ACM SIGKDD}, 2021.
\bibitem{Elsherbiny_Globecom2020_4G_throughput}
H.~Elsherbiny, H.~M. Abbas, H.~Abou-zeid, H.~S. Hassanein, and A.~Noureldin,
``{4G LTE Network Throughput Modelling and Prediction},'' in \emph{GLOBECOM
2020}, 2020.
\bibitem{Minovski_Thrput_TMC_2023}
D.~Minovski, N.~Ögren, K.~Mitra, and C.~Åhlund, ``{Throughput Prediction
Using Machine Learning in LTE and 5G Networks},'' \emph{IEEE Transactions on
Mobile Computing}, vol.~22, no.~3, 2023.
\bibitem{zhou2021radio}
X.~Zhou, J.~Xiong, X.~Zhang, X.~Liu, and J.~Wei, ``{A Radio Anomaly Detection
Algorithm Based on Modified Generative Adversarial Network},'' \emph{IEEE
Wireless Communications Letters}, vol.~10, no.~7, 2021.
\bibitem{sciancalepore2023jamming}
S.~Sciancalepore, F.~Kusters, N.~K. Abdelhadi, and G.~Oligeri, ``{Jamming
detection in low-ber mobile indoor scenarios via deep learning},'' \emph{IEEE
Internet of Things Journal}, vol.~11, no.~8, 2023.
\bibitem{varotto2024detecting}
M.~Varotto, F.~Heinrichs, T.~Sch{\"u}rg, S.~Tomasin, and S.~Valentin,
``{Detecting 5G Narrowband Jammers with CNN, k-nearest Neighbors, and Support
Vector Machines},'' in \emph{IEEE International Workshop on Information
Forensics and Security (WIFS)}.\hskip 1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4em\relax IEEE,
2024.
\bibitem{nopeek}
P.~Vepakomma, A.~Singh, O.~Gupta, and R.~Raskar, ``{NoPeek: Information leakage
reduction to share activations in distributed deep learning},'' in
\emph{International Conference on Data Mining Workshops (ICDMW)}, 2020.
\end{thebibliography}