AI 中文总结
针对6G网络AI/ML生命周期管理中的纠正措施时序问题，通过压力测试验证了稳定性门控混合策略在延迟增加时仍优于硬切换，并提出层2触发机制用于延迟关键操作。
AI 中文摘要
3GPP已逐步扩展无线接入网中的AI/ML生命周期管理，从单侧模型控制发展到Release 20对双侧CSI反馈模型配对的支持。然而，一个基本的控制问题仍然存在：当监控检测到性能下降时，纠正措施必须多快地生效？为揭示这一依赖关系，我们在一个替代性环境转移场景中对三种激活和回滚策略进行了压力测试，使用150个独立训练的PPO候选策略，每个策略在20个匹配的噪声实现上进行评估。我们仅对纠正性生命周期命令添加0-40个控制步的延迟。在没有添加延迟的情况下，与硬切换相比，稳定性门控混合将转移后平均累积SLA赤字从47.02降低到7.57个违规步；在40步延迟时，赤字升至44.38，仅比硬切换基线低5.6%。KPI阈值回滚在仅几个控制间隔内就失去其优势，而混合策略的退化则更为渐进。这些结果并未设定物理6G延迟界限。它们说明了为什么时序要求对纠正措施很重要：生命周期性能取决于命令何时生效。受层1/层2触发移动性的启发，我们研究了一种标准拆分方案，其中层3保留生命周期配置，而紧凑的层2触发仅考虑用于延迟关键子集，同时满足配对一致性、本地回退以及安全/新鲜度要求。
英文摘要
3GPP has progressively expanded AI/ML lifecycle management in the radio access network, from one-sided model control to Release 20 support for two-sided CSI-feedback model pairing. Yet a basic control question remains: when monitoring detects degradation, how quickly must a corrective action take effect? To expose this dependency, we stress-test three activation and rollback strategies in a surrogate regime-shift environment using 150 independently trained PPO candidate policies, each evaluated over 20 matched noise realizations. We add 0-40 control-step delay only to corrective lifecycle commands. With no added delay, stability-gated blending reduces mean post-shift cumulative SLA deficit from 47.02 to 7.57 violation-steps relative to hard cutover; at 40 steps, the deficit rises to 44.38, only 5.6% below the hard-cutover baseline. KPI-threshold rollback loses its advantage within only a few control intervals, while blending degrades more gradually. These results do not set a physical 6G latency bound. They show why timing requirements matter for corrective actions: lifecycle performance depends on when the command takes effect. Motivated by Layer-1/Layer-2 Triggered Mobility, we examine a standards split in which Layer 3 retains lifecycle configuration while a compact Layer 2 trigger is considered only for the latency-critical subset, together with pair-consistency, local-fallback, and security/freshness requirements.
Comments6 pages, 1 figure, 1 table. Submitted to IEEE Communications Standards Magazine
