Searcharxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 1704.05249

Hot or not? Forecasting cellular network hot spots using sector performance indicators

Joan Serrà·Ilias Leontiadis·Alexandros Karatzoglou·Konstantina Papagiannaki
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

To manage and maintain large-scale cellular networks, operators need to know which sectors underperform at any given time. For this purpose, they use the so-called hot spot score, which is the result of a combination of multiple network measurements and reflects the instantaneous overall performance of individual sectors. While operators have a good understanding of the current performance of a network and its overall trend, forecasting the performance of each sector over time is a challenging task, as it is affected by both regular and non-regular events, triggered by human behavior and hardware failures. In this paper, we study the spatio-temporal patterns of the hot spot score and uncover its regularities. Based on our observations, we then explore the possibility to use recent measurements' history to predict future hot spots. To this end, we consider tree-based machine learning models, and study their performance as a function of time, amount of past data, and prediction horizon. Our results indicate that, compared to the best baseline, tree-based models can deliver up to 14% better forecasts for regular hot spots and 153% better forecasts for non-regular hot spots. The latter brings strong evidence that, for moderate horizons, forecasts can be made even for sectors exhibiting isolated, non-regular behavior. Overall, our work provides insight into the dynamics of cellular sectors and their predictability. It also paves the way for more proactive network operations with greater forecasting horizons.

Explore related subjects

cs.LGcs.NIcs.SYeess.SY

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Joan Serrà, Ilias Leontiadis, Alexandros Karatzoglou, Konstantina Papagiannaki. 2017-04-18. Hot or not? Forecasting cellular network hot spots using sector performance indicators. https://arxiv.org/abs/1704.05249

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

AUC Maximization from Biased Positive-unlabeled Data with Confidence

Maximizing the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) is a standard approach to imbalanced binary classification. Although positive and negative data are required for maximizing the AUC, negative data are often difficult to collect in some real-world applications due to privacy concerns or the need for specialized expertise to annotate them. Thus, AUC maximization from positive and unlabeled (PU) data has been attracting attention. Existing methods assume that labeled positive data are unbiased samples from the true positive distribution. However, this ideal assumption is often violated in practice. In this paper, we propose a method to maximize the AUC from biased PU data. To address the bias, our key idea is to exploit {\it confidence}, i.e., the probability that an instance is positive, associated with the small number of labeled positive data. We derive an estimator of the AUC risk using biased PU data with confidence, enabling AUC maximization under such bias. We further show that the rewritten AUC risk induces a Bayes-optimal AUC ranking even when the available confidence is any strictly increasing transformation of the true posterior probability. We experimentally show the effectiveness of our method on eight real-world datasets.

cs.LG↗
arXiv2026

Measuring the Value of World-Model Updates: A Counterfactual Utility Protocol for Continual Adaptation

Continual world models must decide whether new data justify changing the model. Fixed replay schedules and prediction-error triggers specify when to update, but neither reveals the value of an individual update: one deployment run cannot show how the same model would have performed at that moment had it held its parameters. We introduce the fork ledger, which branches a deployment stream at pre-registered decision points into matched update and hold continuations under common random numbers. It evaluates both continuations on the same episodes and records $\Delta R = R_{\mathrm{update}} - R_{\mathrm{hold}}$. Always applying one fixed update mechanism lowers return on all three simulated control tasks: CartPole ($-144.0$; checkpoint-bootstrap $95\%$ CI $[-185.4,-116.1]$, against a converged return near $650$), Walker ($-82.8$; $[-101.1,-61.7]$) and Cheetah ($-18.6$; $[-29.0,-6.6]$). Divergence is an outcome of applying the update, so the estimand counts every attempted fork; restricted to the $693$ of $720$ that did not collapse, CartPole and Walker are unchanged in sign ($-113.4$ and $-82.1$) and Cheetah becomes unresolved ($-3.9$; $[-17.5,+13.0]$). The task is the unit of inference: each contributes $240$ attempted forks over five pretrained checkpoints crossed with two drift directions. The ledger makes counterfactual utility observable for a fixed mechanism, allowing triggers to be judged by the updates they select rather than by surprise detection alone.

cs.LG↗
arXiv2026

When More Is Not Better: Component Anti-Synergy in a P300 Speller

P300 brain-computer interface (BCI) spellers can provide hands-free communication for people with severe motor impairments. Modern pipelines combine multiple individually promising components, often assuming that 'more-is-better'. We tested this assumption using a four-component full-factorial experiment varying the inclusion of Euclidean Alignment (EA), xDAWN spatial filtering, subject calibration, and language model priors on a public P300 dataset. Performance was evaluated using accuracy, repetitions, and information transfer rate (ITR) with mixed-effects models. Results show that the value of components is conditional rather than additive. Calibration was the strongest singular contributor, while EA compensated for its absence in zero-calibration settings. Adding independently useful components could also reduce performance, revealing component anti-synergy. Contrary to conventional wisdom, LM support was not universally beneficial: its effect depends strongly on the strength of the underlying EEG pipeline, while results from a larger LM showed a similar pattern. Together, these findings challenge maximal 'all-on' pipeline design and highlight the value of selecting spatial and language-support components according to the quality of available EEG evidence.

cs.LG↗