Introduction of fifth generation (5G) wireless network technology has matched the crucial need for high capacity and speed needs of the new generation mobile applications. Recent advances in Artificial Intelligence (AI) also empowered 5G cellular networks with two mainstreams as machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL) techniques. Our study aims to uncover the differences in scientific impact for these two techniques by the means of statistical bibliometrics. The performed analysis includes citation performance with respect to indexing types, funding availability, journal or conference publishing options together with distributions of these metrics along years to evaluate the popularity trends in a detailed manner. Web of Science (WoS) database host 2245 papers for ML and 1407 papers for DL-related studies. DL studies, starting with 9% rate in 2013, has reached to 45% rate in 2022 among all DL and ML-related studies. Results related to scientific impact indicate that DL studies get slightly more average normalized citation (2.256) compared to ML studies (2.118) in 5G, while SCI-Expanded indexed papers in both sides tend to have similar citation performance (3.165 and 3.162 respectively). ML-related studies those are indexed in ESCI show twice citation performance compared to DL. Conference papers in DL domain and journal papers in ML domain are superior in scientific interest to their counterparts with minor differences. Highest citation performance for ML studies is achieved for year 2014, while this peak is observed for 2017 for DL studies. We can conclude that both publication and citation rate for DL-related papers tend to increase and outperform ML-based studies in 5G domain by the means of citation metrics.
翻译:第5代(5G)无线网络技术的引进与新一代移动应用程序的高度能力和速度需求需求需求相匹配。《人工智能(AI)》的最新进展还赋予了5G蜂窝网络以作为机器学习(ML)和深层学习(DL)技术的两个主流,作为机器学习(ML)和深层学习(DL)技术。我们的研究旨在通过统计文献计量方法发现这两种技术在科学影响方面的差异。进行的分析包括:在指数类型、资金提供、期刊或会议出版选择方面,以及多年来分发这些衡量标准,以详细评价受欢迎趋势。《人工智能(WoS)》数据库为ML提供了2245篇论文,DL相关研究为1407篇论文提供了授权。从2013年的9%开始,所有DL和ML相关研究达到42%。与科学影响有关的研究结果表明,DL研究的引用率略高于ML(2.18),而SCI两边的索引文件为ML(ML-L)与ML的成绩对比性能和D领域研究分别显示与D领域(3.L)的成绩对比。