Cited by 6Software-Defined Networks and 5GInternet Traffic Analysis and Secure E-votingAdvanced Wireless Communication Technologies

Realistic Performance Assessment of Machine Learning Algorithms for 6G Network Slicing: A Dual-Methodology Approach with Explainable AI Integration

Open access
Karahan, Sümeye Nur, Güllü, Merve, Karhan, Deniz, Çimen, Sedat, Osmanca, Mustafa Serdar, Barışçı, Necaattin·2025·Electronics

Abstract

As 6G networks become increasingly complex and heterogeneous, effective classification of network slicing is essential for optimizing resources and managing quality of service. While recent advances demonstrate high accuracy under controlled laboratory conditions, a critical gap exists between algorithm performance evaluation under idealized conditions and their actual effectiveness in realistic deployment scenarios. This study presents a comprehensive comparative analysis of two distinct preprocessing methodologies for 6G network slicing classification: Pure Raw Data Analysis (PRDA) and Literature-Validated Realistic Transformations (LVRTs). We evaluate the impact of these strategies on algorithm performance, resilience characteristics, and practical deployment feasibility to bridge the laboratory–reality gap in 6G network optimization. Our experimental methodology involved testing eleven machine learning algorithms—including traditional ML, ensemble methods, and deep learning approaches—on a dataset comprising 10,000 network slicing samples (expanded to 21,033 through realistic transformations) across five network slice types. The LVRT methodology incorporates realistic operational impairments including market-driven class imbalance (9:1 ratio), multi-layer interference patterns, and systematic missing data reflecting authentic 6G deployment challenges. The experimental results revealed significant differences in algorithm behavior between the two preprocessing approaches. Under PRDA conditions, deep learning models achieved perfect accuracy (100% for CNN and FNN), while traditional algorithms ranged from 60.9% to 89.0%. However, LVRT results exposed dramatic performance variations, with accuracies spanning from 58.0% to 81.2%. Most significantly, we discovered that algorithms achieving excellent laboratory performance experience substantial degradation under realistic conditions, with CNNs showing an 18.8% accuracy loss (dropping from 100% to 81.2%), FNNs experiencing an 18.9% loss (declining from 100% to 81.1%), and Naive Bayes models suffering a 34.8% loss (falling from 89% to 58%). Conversely, SVM (RBF) and Logistic Regression demonstrated counter-intuitive resilience, improving by 14.1 and 10.3 percentage points, respectively, under operational stress, demonstrating superior adaptability to realistic network conditions. This study establishes a resilience-based classification framework enabling informed algorithm selection for diverse 6G deployment scenarios. Additionally, we introduce a comprehensive explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) framework using SHAP analysis to provide interpretable insights into algorithm decision-making processes. The XAI analysis reveals that Packet Loss Budget emerges as the dominant feature across all algorithms, while Slice Jitter and Slice Latency constitute secondary importance features. Cross-scenario interpretability consistency analysis demonstrates that CNN, LSTM, and Naive Bayes achieve perfect or near-perfect consistency scores (0.998–1.000), while SVM and Logistic Regression maintain high consistency (0.988–0.997), making them suitable for regulatory compliance scenarios. In contrast, XGBoost shows low consistency (0.106) despite high accuracy, requiring intensive monitoring for deployment. This research contributes essential insights for bridging the critical gap between algorithm development and deployment success in next-generation wireless networks, providing evidence-based guidelines for algorithm selection based on accuracy, resilience, and interpretability requirements. Our findings establish quantitative resilience boundaries: algorithms achieving >99% laboratory accuracy exhibit 58–81% performance under realistic conditions, with CNN and FNN maintaining the highest absolute accuracy (81.2% and 81.1%, respectively) despite experiencing significant degradation from laboratory conditions.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/electronics14193841

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Authors
Karahan, S. N., Güllü, M., Karhan, D., Çimen, S., Osmanca, M. S., & Barışçı, N.
Affiliations
  • Türk Telekom (Turkey) (TR)
  • Gazi University (TR)
Corresponding author
Karahan, Sümeye Nur
Venue
Electronics
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2025-09-27
Volume
14
Issue
19
Pages
3841
ISSN
2079-9292 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4414592674
Cited by
6
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 1
FWCI
2.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Electronics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Software-Defined Networks and 5G
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Internet Traffic Analysis and Secure E-voting
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Electrical and Electronic Engineering › Advanced Wireless Communication Technologies
Keywords
class imbalance, missing data, interference patterns, performance degradation, explainable AI, SHAP, feature importance, algorithm selection, deep learning, ensemble methods, support vector machine, logistic regression, naive Bayes, convolutional neural networks, quality of service, resource allocation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review