Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

XAInomaly: Explainable and Interpretable Deep Contractive Autoencoder for O-RAN Traffic Anomaly Detection

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A semi-supervised contractive autoencoder detects O-RAN traffic anomalies with as few as 100 labeled samples, and a fast SHAP-based explainer makes the detections interpretable in real time.

desk verdict A promising O-RAN anomaly detection combination undermined by a missing classification head in the semi-supervised loss, plus several smaller but real technical inconsistencies. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.09194 v1 pith:FZBZK6S7 submitted 2025-02-13 cs.IT cs.AImath.IT

Osman Tugay Basaran , Falko Dressler This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ITcs.AImath.IT
keywords anomalydetectionO-RANcontractiveautoencodersemi-supervisedlearningexplainableAISHAPvaluesnetworkmanagement
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

XAInomaly claims that a semi-supervised deep contractive autoencoder (SS-DeepCAE) can detect anomalies in O-RAN traffic much more accurately than standard deep autoencoders when labels are scarce, and that the accompanying fastSHAP-C explainer makes these detections interpretable in real time. The paper reports unweighted average recall of 80.17 ± 0.6 with only 100 labeled samples, against 71.72 ± 1.5 for the DeepAE baseline, and a 34% runtime reduction for fastSHAP-C compared with the same explainer on DeepAE. This matters because O-RAN's disaggregated, multi-vendor architecture needs anomaly detection that does not depend on large labeled datasets and can explain its alerts to operators. The framework is designed to run as xApps on the Near-RT RIC, connecting detection to traffic-steering decisions.

What carries the argument

The central object is the SS-DeepCAE loss, which combines mean-squared reconstruction error, a contractive term $\lambda_c \| \partial E(x_i;\theta_e)/\partial x_i \|_F^2$ that penalizes how much the encoder's latent representation changes under small input perturbations, and a supervised cross-entropy term $\alpha_i \ell_{\text{cro}}(y_i, \hat{y}_i)$ applied only to labeled samples. The contractive penalty encourages smooth, robust latent features that separate normal from anomalous traffic. The supporting object is fastSHAP-C, a learned explainer that approximates Shapley-value attributions through one forward pass, augmented by a Confidence Score and an Error Metric that quantify how faithfully the explanation reconstructs the model output.

What would settle it

Reproduce the training with the architecture given in Table IV; if no classification head exists, the supervised term in Eq. (12) cannot be evaluated, and removing it would show whether the 80.17 UAR figure actually depends on labeled data. Separately, construct a variant of the unlabeled training pool whose anomaly share approaches 25% (matching the full dataset) and measure UAR; if it collapses toward the vanilla-autoencoder level, the mostly-normal-unlabeled premise is load-bearing.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes XAInomaly as an explainable, resource-efficient anomaly detector for open radio access networks. The SS-DeepCAE learns compressed representations of normal traffic by minimizing a combined loss of reconstruction error, a contractive penalty on the encoder Jacobian, and a cross-entropy term applied to the few labeled samples; at inference, reconstruction error and latent norm feed an anomaly score. Experiments on a 10,000-sample O-RAN dataset with roughly 25% anomalies report UAR of 80.17 ± 0.6 at 100 labeled samples, rising to 91.17 ± 0.6 with all labels, beating DeepAE, SLA-VAE, LSTM-autoencoder, and vanilla autoencoder at every label count. fastSHAP-C, a learned explainer that estimates Shapley values with a single forward pass, reduces runtime to 22,145 ms from 33,627 ms on DeepAE (a 34% improvement) and from 320,400 ms for kernelSHAP (about 93% faster), while identifying RSRP, RSRQ, and RSSINR as the dominant features behind anomaly flags.

Load-bearing premise

The semi-supervised gains rest on the assumption that the cross-entropy term in the stated loss actually reaches the network through a classification head on the latent representation, and that the unlabeled training samples are overwhelmingly normal traffic.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Deploying SS-DeepCAE as an anomaly-detection xApp on the Near-RT RIC lets operators monitor O-RAN traffic with a model whose accuracy plateaus after roughly 800 labeled samples, easing the labeling burden.
  • fastSHAP-C can produce per-sample explanations in real time, so the Traffic Steering xApp can factor explanation confidence into handover decisions.
  • The finding that RSRP, RSRQ, and RSSINR dominate the attributions gives operators a concrete, model-driven prioritization of RF KPIs for monitoring and troubleshooting.
  • The low parameter count of 8,180 trainable parameters supports deployment in resource-constrained edge or micro-data-center settings.
  • Because UAR stays high as labels increase from 100 to the full dataset, the model offers a scalable path from label-scarce to label-rich operations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the reported 34% runtime gain is measured between fastSHAP-C on SS-DeepCAE and fastSHAP-C on DeepAE, so part of the gain may come from the smaller backbone rather than the explainer itself; a controlled benchmark holding the backbone fixed would separate the two effects.
  • Editorial inference: the contractive penalty is generic, so the same architecture should transfer to other O-RAN telemetry streams (for example, fronthaul or core interfaces) provided the unlabeled training pool actually reflects normal behavior.
  • Editorial inference: if RSRP, RSRQ, and RSSINR remain the top attributions across cells and time, operators could pre-filter monitoring to these KPIs and shrink the feature space, potentially lowering labeling and compute costs further.
  • Editorial inference: the semi-supervised gains depend on a mostly-normal unlabeled pool, so an operator applying the method to a heavily contaminated stream should first validate that premise empirically.
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.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes XAInomaly, a framework combining a semi-supervised deep contractive autoencoder (SS-DeepCAE) with a fastSHAP-C explainability method for traffic anomaly detection in O-RAN. The authors claim that SS-DeepCAE achieves high unweighted average recall (UAR) with very few labeled samples (e.g., 80.17±0.6 with 100 labels), outperforming baselines including DeepAE, and that fastSHAP-C provides real-time SHAP values with a 34% runtime improvement. The paper includes a description of the model architecture, loss functions, training procedure, XAI algorithm, and experiments on a public O-RAN dataset.

Significance. If the reported results were reproducible, the framework would address a practically relevant problem: interpretable, resource-efficient anomaly detection in O-RAN with limited labeled data. The paper also makes a useful empirical comparison across several autoencoder baselines and two SHAP-based explanation methods, using a public dataset. However, the significance is severely limited by internal inconsistencies in the method description: the supervised loss cannot be computed from the specified architecture, the unlabeled data construction is ambiguous, and the contractive Jacobian formula is incorrect for deep encoders. These issues prevent verification of the central claims.

major comments (5)
  1. [Sec. III-B, Eq. (12), Table IV] The semi-supervised loss in Eq. (12) includes the cross-entropy term α_i ℓ_cro(y_i, ŷ_i), which requires a classification head that maps the latent representation z to a binary prediction ŷ. However, the architecture in Table IV contains no such head: the final dense layer outputs a 20-dimensional reconstruction, not a scalar probability. Thus, as described, the supervised term cannot be computed, and the reported UAR gains from labeled samples (Table V, e.g., 80.17±0.6 with 100 labels) are not attributable to the stated method. Please specify the classification head (or reformulate the loss) and update the architecture and parameter counts accordingly.
  2. [Sec. III-A, Eqs. (2)-(3)] The construction of the unlabeled set D_u is never specified. The dataset has approximately 25% anomalies; if D_u is built by sampling from the full dataset, it contains a substantial fraction of anomalies, contradicting the statement in Sec. III-A that the unlabeled data consist of 'normal traffic patterns.' If anomalies are instead removed using the available labels, then labels are used to construct the so-called unlabeled set, undermining the semi-supervised claim. The paper must state how D_u is sampled and how the model's reconstruction and contractive objectives treat anomalous samples in D_u.
  3. [Sec. III-B, Eq. (10)] Equation (10) gives the Jacobian of the deep encoder as J_i = W^{(l)} diag(f'^{(l-1)}(...)) W^{(l-1)}, but the Jacobian of a multi-layer encoder is a product of per-layer Jacobians (one factor per layer), not the two-matrix expression shown. As written, Eq. (10) cannot be used to evaluate the contractive penalty in Eq. (9), and the mathematical description of the method's core mechanism is incorrect. Please provide the correct Jacobian formula for the full encoder (or state that automatic differentiation is used and remove the explicit incorrect formula).
  4. [Sec. IV-B and Sec. V-C] The Confidence Score (CS) is defined inconsistently. In Algorithm 1 (lines 12-13), CS is the average absolute residual f_x,y(s_i) - f_x,y(0) - s_i^T φ̂ over sampled subsets, while in Sec. V-C, Eq. (34), CS is the average absolute difference between f(x_i) and Σ φ_i(x_i) over inputs. The verbal interpretations also conflict: Sec. IV-B states 'A lower CS indicates higher confidence,' whereas Sec. V-C states 'A high CS indicates that the explanations are accurate.' Please harmonize the definition and the interpretation across Sections IV-B and V-C.
  5. [Sec. I (F2) and Sec. VI-B3] Contribution F2 states that 'fastSHAP-C provides 34% advance over its competitors in terms of runtime performance.' The 34% figure reported in Sec. VI-B3 is actually the runtime reduction from fastSHAP-C on DeepAE (33,627 ms) to fastSHAP-C on SS-DeepCAE (22,145 ms) — i.e., an improvement due to changing the underlying autoencoder, not a comparison with competitor XAI methods. Against kernelSHAP (320.4 s) and fastSHAP (48.007 s), the reductions are approximately 93% and 54%, respectively. The claim should be reworded to reflect the actual comparison.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. V-D, Table III] The header 'Hidden layer s.' is garbled, and the selected hidden layer size '3.0 xInput Size' is inconsistent with the 64-unit first hidden layer in Table IV (60 would be 3×20). Please correct the table and reconcile the text.
  2. [Sec. IV-B, Algorithm 1] The 'normalize' flag in line 7 is undefined, and the computation of CS and EM on lines 12-13 does not specify how the n samples are accumulated or when they are finalized. Please clarify the pseudocode.
  3. [Sec. V-C, Eq. (35)] The sensitivity metric uses an ε-neighborhood B_ε(x_i) without specifying a value of ε or how the maximization is performed; no sensitivity results are reported, so the metric's role is unclear.
  4. [Sec. V-C, Eq. (36) and Table VII] The log-odds metric in Eq. (36) is not clearly connected to the exclusion/inclusion AUC values reported in Table VII; please define how the AUC is computed from log-odds.
  5. [Table V] The UAR for SS-DeepCAE is 91.33±(1.4) at 1,000 labeled samples and 91.17±(0.6) for 'All' labeled samples; the slight decrease with more labels merits a brief explanation (e.g., different random splits).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the central claims are empirical benchmarks against external and prior-work baselines, with self-citations not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's main findings are experimental measurements rather than derivations from the model equations. The UAR values in Table V (e.g., 80.17 +/- 0.6 with 100 labeled samples) and the runtime figures in Tables VIII and IX are benchmark results obtained by training and evaluating the proposed SS-DeepCAE and fastSHAP-C against kernelSHAP, fastSHAP, Vanilla-AE, LSTM-AE, SLA-VAE, and the authors' earlier DeepAE. No equation in Section III analytically predicts these numbers from the loss function, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The use of the authors' prior DeepAE [21] as a baseline, and the citation of their earlier fastSHAP-C work [14], are ordinary self-citations; neither is the load-bearing justification for the empirical claims. The contractive penalty is imported from the external contractive autoencoder literature [34], and fastSHAP is an external method [45]. The paper does have internal consistency gaps - the supervised cross-entropy term in Eq. (11)-(12) requires a classification head that is absent from the architecture in Table IV, and the construction of the unlabeled set Du is not specified given that about 25% of the dataset is anomalous. These are correctness/completeness concerns, not circularity: the reported results are not shown to be equivalent to the inputs by construction, and no derivation reduces to a self-citation chain. Score 1 reflects only the presence of minor, non-load-bearing self-citations.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The main free parameters are the contractive weight, the semi-supervised loss weight, the anomaly balance, and the threshold, none of which are reported with values. The axioms are domain assumptions about unlabeled data, the value function, and the Jacobian formula.

free parameters (4)
  • λ_c (contractive penalty weight)
    Controls the contractive penalty in Eq (9); value is not reported in Table III or the text.
  • λ (cross-entropy loss weight)
    Balances the supervised loss in Eqs (12)-(13); value is not reported.
  • γ (anomaly score balance)
    Balances reconstruction error and latent norm in Eq (19); value and tuning are not specified.
  • τ (anomaly threshold)
    Decision threshold in Eq (17); selection method is not described.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Unlabeled training data are predominantly normal traffic.
    Section III-A states 'the majority of the training data consists of unlabeled normal traffic patterns', but the dataset contains ~25% anomalies; the method for constructing the unlabeled set is not described.
  • domain assumption Reconstruction error and latent norm are sufficient anomaly indicators.
    Eqs (16)-(19) define the anomaly score; no justification is given beyond autoencoder literature.
  • domain assumption The value function v(S) for feature subsets is well-defined for the autoencoder.
    Eqs (23)-(24) require evaluating the model on partial feature sets via background distribution; this is standard for SHAP but is an assumption about how missing features are handled.
  • ad hoc to paper Eq (10) correctly represents the Jacobian of the deep encoder.
    The formula only includes two layers and is incorrect for the deep encoder described in Eqs (5) and Table IV; the statement is used to justify the contractive penalty, though the implementation relies on automatic differentiation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of XAInomaly: Explainable and Interpretable Deep Contractive Autoencoder for O-RAN Traffic Anomaly Detection." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FZBZK6S7

@misc{pith2026250209194,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: XAInomaly: Explainable and Interpretable Deep Contractive Autoencoder for O-RAN Traffic Anomaly Detection},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FZBZK6S7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.09194}
}
read the original abstract

Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) techniques have become integral part in advancing next generation wireless communication systems by enabling sophisticated data modeling and feature extraction for enhanced network performance. In the realm of open radio access networks (O-RAN), characterized by their disaggregated architecture and heterogeneous components from multiple vendors, the deployment of generative models offers significant advantages for network management such as traffic analysis, traffic forecasting and anomaly detection. However, the complex and dynamic nature of O-RAN introduces challenges that necessitate not only accurate detection mechanisms but also reduced complexity, scalability, and most importantly interpretability to facilitate effective network management. In this study, we introduce the XAInomaly framework, an explainable and interpretable Semi-supervised (SS) Deep Contractive Autoencoder (DeepCAE) design for anomaly detection in O-RAN. Our approach leverages the generative modeling capabilities of our SS-DeepCAE model to learn compressed, robust representations of normal network behavior, which captures essential features, enabling the identification of deviations indicative of anomalies. To address the black-box nature of deep learning models, we propose reactive Explainable AI (XAI) technique called fastshap-C.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.09194 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. GenAI and XAI interaction between user and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. O-RAN reference architecture with XAInomaly [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Dimensionality reduction on our high [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Integration of XAInomaly framework to O-RAN [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Training and validation loss-accuracy curves over [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Reconstruction error distribution for SS-DeepCAE with different layer size (Upper Graph) Precision distribution of SS-DeepCAE with different layer size (Lower Graph) of the input data, minimizing overfitting while main￾taining sensitivity to anomalies. As the number of…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Accuracy, Precision, F1-score, and AUC variation curves of models with different ratio labeled samples [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Explaining feature contributions with SHAP [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Exclusion and Inclusion Curves for top-1 Accu￾racy and fastSHAP as features are added back (from 0% up to 100%), which is formalized by retaining only the set RM,κ(x) = n j [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Interpretable Anomaly-Based DDoS Detection in AI-RAN with XAI and LLMs

    cs.CR 2025-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    An LSTM trained on 5G key performance measurements detects DDoS attacks from user equipment with F1 above 0.96, while LIME, SHAP, and an LLM convert decisions into human-readable explanations and suggested mitigations.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Understanding O-RAN: Architecture, Interfaces, Algorithms, Security, and Research Challenges,

    M. Polese, L. Bonati, S. D’Oro, S. Basagni, and T. Melodia, “Understanding O-RAN: Architecture, Interfaces, Algorithms, Security, and Research Challenges,” IEEE Communications Sur- veys & Tutorials, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 1376–1411, 2023

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Empowering the 6G Cellular Ar- chitecture with Open RAN,

    M. Polese, M. Dohler, F. Dressler, M. Erol-Kantarci, R. Jana, R. Knopp, and T. Melodia, “Empowering the 6G Cellular Ar- chitecture with Open RAN,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 245–262, Feb. 2024

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Ar- tificial Neural Networks-Based Machine Learning for Wireless Networks: A Tutorial,

    M. Chen, U. Challita, W. Saad, C. Yin, and M. Debbah, “Ar- tificial Neural Networks-Based Machine Learning for Wireless Networks: A Tutorial,” IEEE Communications Surveys & Tuto- rials, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 3039–3071, 2019

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    Generative adversarial nets,

    I. J. Goodfellow, J. Pouget-Abadie, M. Mirza, B. Xu, D. Warde- Farley, S. Ozair, A. Courville, and Y . Bengio, “Generative adversarial nets,” in 28th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeuRIPS) . Montr ´eal, Canada: Curran Associates Inc., Dec. 2014, pp. 2672–2680

    work page 2014

  5. [5]

    Goodfellow, Y

    I. Goodfellow, Y . Bengio, and A. Courville, Deep learning. MIT Press, 2016

    2016

  6. [6]

    O-RAN Towards 6G,

    V . Dixit, J. Plachy, K. Sun, A. Ikami, E. Obiodu, and K. Lee, “O-RAN Towards 6G,” O-RAN next Generation Research Group (nGRG), Research Report, Oct. 2023, version 03.00

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Misconfiguration in O-RAN: Analysis of the impact of AI/ML,

    N. M. Yungaicela-Naula, V . Sharma, and S. Scott-Hayward, “Misconfiguration in O-RAN: Analysis of the impact of AI/ML,” Computer Networks, vol. 247, p. 110455, Jun. 2024

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Practical autoencoder based anomaly detection by using vector reconstruction error,

    H. Torabi, S. L. Mirtaheri, and S. Greco, “Practical autoencoder based anomaly detection by using vector reconstruction error,” Cybersecurity, vol. 6, no. 1, Jan. 2023

    work page 2023

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    Peeking Inside the Black-Box: A Survey on Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI),

    A. Adadi and M. Berrada, “Peeking Inside the Black-Box: A Survey on Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI),” IEEE Access, vol. 6, pp. 52 138–52 160, 2018

    2018

  2. [10]

    A Vision of 6G Wireless Systems: Applications, Trends, Technologies, and Open Research Problems,

    W. Saad, M. Bennis, and M. Chen, “A Vision of 6G Wireless Systems: Applications, Trends, Technologies, and Open Research Problems,” IEEE Network , vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 134–142, May 2020

    2020

  3. [11]

    The Mythos of Model Interpretability: In machine learning, the concept of interpretability is both important and slippery

    Z. C. Lipton, “The Mythos of Model Interpretability: In machine learning, the concept of interpretability is both important and slippery.” Queue, vol. 16, no. 3, p. 31 ˆaC“57, Jun. 2018. 22

    2018

  4. [12]

    DARPA’s explainable AI (XAI) program: A retrospective,

    D. Gunning, E. V orm, J. Y . Wang, and M. Turek, “DARPA’s explainable AI (XAI) program: A retrospective,” Applied AI Letters, vol. 2, no. 4, Dec. 2021

    2021

  5. [13]

    Explainable Artificial Intelligence for 6G: Improving Trust between Human and Machine,

    W. Guo, “Explainable Artificial Intelligence for 6G: Improving Trust between Human and Machine,” IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 58, no. 6, pp. 39–45, Jun. 2020

    2020

  6. [14]

    XAInomaly: Explainable, Inter- pretable and Trustworthy AI for xURLLC in 6G Open-RAN,

    O. T. Basaran and F. Dressler, “XAInomaly: Explainable, Inter- pretable and Trustworthy AI for xURLLC in 6G Open-RAN,” in 3rd International Conference on 6G Networking (6GNet 2024) . Paris, France: IEEE, Oct. 2024, pp. 93–101

    2024

  7. [15]

    Toward native explainable and robust AI in 6G networks: Current state, challenges and road ahead,

    C. Fiandrino, G. Attanasio, M. Fiore, and J. Widmer, “Toward native explainable and robust AI in 6G networks: Current state, challenges and road ahead,” Elsevier Computer Communications, vol. 193, pp. 47–52, Sep. 2022

    2022

  8. [16]

    Benchmarking of Anomaly Detection Techniques in O-RAN for Handover Optimization,

    Z. Mahrez, M. B. Driss, E. Sabir, W. Saad, and E. Driouch, “Benchmarking of Anomaly Detection Techniques in O-RAN for Handover Optimization,” in 19th IEEE International Conference on Wireless and Mobile Computing (IWCMC 2023). Marrakesh, Morocco: IEEE, Jun. 2023, pp. 119–125

    2023

  9. [17]

    Machine Learning Applied to Anomaly Detection on 5G O-RAN Architecture,

    P. V . Alves, M. A. Goldbarg, W. K. Barros, I. D. Rego, V . J. Filho, A. M. Martins, V . A. d. S. Jr., R. d. R. Fontes, E. H. d. S. Aranha, A. V . Neto, and M. A. Fernandes, “Machine Learning Applied to Anomaly Detection on 5G O-RAN Architecture,” Procedia Computer Science, vo...

    2023

  10. [18]

    EXPLORA: AI/ML EXPLainability for the Open RAN,

    C. Fiandrino, L. Bonati, S. D’Oro, M. Polese, T. Melodia, and J. Widmer, “EXPLORA: AI/ML EXPLainability for the Open RAN,” Proceedings of the ACM on Networking , vol. 1, pp. 1– 26, Nov. 2023

    2023

  11. [19]

    Explainable and Robust Artificial Intelligence for Trustworthy Resource Management in 6G Networks,

    N. Khan, S. Coleri, A. Abdallah, A. Celik, and A. M. Eltawil, “Explainable and Robust Artificial Intelligence for Trustworthy Resource Management in 6G Networks,” IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 62, no. 4, pp. 50–56, Apr. 2024

    2024

  12. [20]

    Leveraging Explainable AI for Reducing Queries of Performance Indicators in Open RAN,

    C. Tassie, B. Kim, J. Groen, M. Belgiovine, and K. R. Chowd- hury, “Leveraging Explainable AI for Reducing Queries of Performance Indicators in Open RAN,” in IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC 2024). Denver, CO: IEEE, Jun. 2024, pp. 5413–5418

    2024

  13. [21]

    Deep Autoencoder Design for RF Anomaly Detection in 5G O-RAN Near-RT RIC via xApps,

    O. T. Basaran, M. Basaran, D. Turan, H. G. Bayrak, and Y . S. Sandal, “Deep Autoencoder Design for RF Anomaly Detection in 5G O-RAN Near-RT RIC via xApps,” in IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC 2023), 2nd Workshop on Industrial Private 5G-and-beyond Wireless ...

    2023

  14. [22]

    O-RAN Architecture Description,

    O-RAN, “O-RAN Architecture Description,” O-RAN Alliance (O-RAN), Technical Specification, 06 2024, version 12.00

    2024

  15. [23]

    O-RAN Fronthaul Control, User and Synchronization Plane Specification,

    ETSI, “O-RAN Fronthaul Control, User and Synchronization Plane Specification,” European Telecommunications Standards Institute, Technical Specification (TS), 09 2022, version 07.02

    2022

  16. [24]

    O-RAN Use Cases and Requirements,

    O-RAN, “O-RAN Use Cases and Requirements,” O-RAN Al- liance (O-RAN), Technical Specification, Oct. 2024, version 07.00

    2024

  17. [25]

    O-RAN A1 interface: General Aspects and Princi- ples,

    O-RAN , “O-RAN A1 interface: General Aspects and Princi- ples,” O-RAN Alliance (O-RAN), Technical Specification, Oct. 2024, version 04.00

    2024

  18. [26]

    O-RAN O1 Interface Specification,

    O-RAN, “O-RAN O1 Interface Specification,” O-RAN Alliance (O-RAN), Technical Specification, Oct. 2024, version 14.00

    2024

  19. [27]

    O-RAN SMO Intents-driven Management,

    O-RAN A, “O-RAN SMO Intents-driven Management,” O-RAN Alliance (O-RAN), Technical Specification, Oct. 2024, version 03.00

    2024

  20. [28]

    O-RAN Near-RT RIC Architecture,

    O-RAN , “O-RAN Near-RT RIC Architecture,” O-RAN Alliance (O-RAN), Technical Specification, 06 2024, version 6.00

    2024

  21. [29]

    PRISM: Pre-training RF Signals in Sparsity-aware Masked Autoencoders,

    L. Fang, R. Song, Z. Lu, D. Zhang, Y . Hu, Q. Sun, and Y . Chen, “PRISM: Pre-training RF Signals in Sparsity-aware Masked Autoencoders,” in 43rd IEEE International Conference on Computer Communications (INFOCOM 2024) . Vancouver, Canada: IEEE, May 2024, pp. 2109–2118

    2024

  22. [30]

    CVCA: A Complex- Valued Classifiable Autoencoder for MmWave Massive MIMO Physical Layer Authentication,

    X. Zeng, C. Wang, C.-C. Wang, and Z. Li, “CVCA: A Complex- Valued Classifiable Autoencoder for MmWave Massive MIMO Physical Layer Authentication,” in 42nd IEEE International Conference on Computer Communications (INFOCOM 2023), Infocom Workshops 2023 (Workshops) . New York Cit...

    2023

  23. [31]

    CSI-GPT: Integrating Generative Pre-Trained Transformer With Federated-Tuning to Acquire Downlink Mas- sive MIMO Channels,

    Y . Zeng, L. Qiao, Z. Gao, T. Qin, Z. Wu, E. Khalaf, S. Chen, and M. Guizani, “CSI-GPT: Integrating Generative Pre-Trained Transformer With Federated-Tuning to Acquire Downlink Mas- sive MIMO Channels,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Tech- nology, Nov. 2024, to appear

    2024

  24. [32]

    Zhu and A

    X. Zhu and A. B. Goldberg, Introduction to Semi-Supervised Learning. Springer, 2009

    2009

  25. [33]

    Reducing the Dimen- sionality of Data with Neural Networks,

    G. E. Hinton and R. R. Salakhutdinov, “Reducing the Dimen- sionality of Data with Neural Networks,” Science, vol. 313, no. 5786, pp. 504–507, Jul. 2006

    2006

  26. [34]

    Contractive auto-encoders: explicit invariance during feature extraction,

    S. Rifai, P. Vincent, X. Muller, X. Glorot, and Y . Bengio, “Contractive auto-encoders: explicit invariance during feature extraction,” in 28th International Conference on International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML 2011) . Bellevue, W A: Omnipress, Jun. 2011, pp. 833–840

    2011

  27. [35]

    Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimization,

    D. P. Kingma and J. Ba, “Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimization,” in 3rd International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR 2015) , San Diego, CA, May 2015

    2015

  28. [36]

    Visualizing Data using t- SNE,

    L. van der Maaten and G. Hinton, “Visualizing Data using t- SNE,” Journal of Machine Learning Research , vol. 9, no. 86, pp. 2579–2605, 2008

    2008

  29. [37]

    Regularising LSTM classifier by transfer learning for detecting misogynistic tweets with small training set,

    M. A. Bashar, R. Nayak, and N. Suzor, “Regularising LSTM classifier by transfer learning for detecting misogynistic tweets with small training set,” Knowledge and Information Systems , vol. 62, no. 10, pp. 4029–4054, Jun. 2020

    2020

  30. [38]

    Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python,

    F. Pedregosa, G. Varoquaux, A. Gramfort, V . Michel, B. Thirion, O. Grisel, M. Blondel, P. Prettenhofer, R. Weiss, V . Dubourg, J. Vanderplas, A. Passos, D. Cournapeau, M. Brucher, M. Perrot, and ´E. Duchesnay, “Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python,” Journal of Machine Lea...

    2011

  31. [39]

    Multilayer feedfor- ward networks are universal approximators,

    K. Hornik, M. Stinchcombe, and H. White, “Multilayer feedfor- ward networks are universal approximators,” Neural Networks , vol. 2, no. 5, pp. 359–366, Jan. 1989

    1989

  32. [40]

    Large-Scale Machine Learning with Stochastic Gra- dient Descent,

    L. Bottou, “Large-Scale Machine Learning with Stochastic Gra- dient Descent,” in 19th International Conference on Computa- tional Statistics (COMPSTAT 2010) . Paris, France: Physica- Verlag, Aug. 2010, pp. 177–186

    2010

  33. [41]

    Deep Sparse Rectifier Neural Networks,

    X. Glorot, A. Bordes, and Y . Bengio, “Deep Sparse Rectifier Neural Networks,” in 14th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics (AISTATS 2011) . Fort Lauderdale, FL: JMLR.org, Nov. 2011, pp. 315–323

    2011

  34. [42]

    Anomaly Detection Using Autoencoders in High Performance Computing Systems,

    A. Borghesi, A. Bartolini, M. Lombardi, M. Milano, and L. Benini, “Anomaly Detection Using Autoencoders in High Performance Computing Systems,” Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , vol. 33, no. 01, pp. 9428– 9433, Jul. 2019

    2019

  35. [43]

    A Semi-Supervised V AE Based Active Anomaly Detection Framework in Multivariate Time Series for Online Systems,

    T. Huang, P. Chen, and R. Li, “A Semi-Supervised V AE Based Active Anomaly Detection Framework in Multivariate Time Series for Online Systems,” in ACM Web Conference 2022 . Lyon, France: ACM, Apr. 2022

    2022

  36. [44]

    A Unified Approach to Inter- preting Model Predictions,

    S. M. Lundberg and S.-I. Lee, “A Unified Approach to Inter- preting Model Predictions,” in 31st International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS 2017) . Long Beach, CA: Curran Associates Inc., Dec. 2017, pp. 4768–4777

    2017

  37. [45]

    FastSHAP: Real-Time Shapley Value Estimation,

    N. Jethani, M. Sudarshan, I. C. Covert, S.-I. Lee, and R. Ran- ganath, “FastSHAP: Real-Time Shapley Value Estimation,” in 10th International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR 2022), vol. V1. Virtual Conference: ICLR, Apr. 2022

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.