Efficient 3-D placement of an aerial base station in next generation cellular networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Agility and resilience requirements of future cellular networks may not be fully satisfied by terrestrial base stations in cases of unexpected or temporary events. A promising solution is assisting the cellular network via low-altitude unmanned aerial vehicles equipped with base stations, i.e., drone-cells. Although drone-cells provide a quick deployment opportunity as aerial base stations, efficient placement becomes one of the key issues. In addition to mobility of the drone-cells in the vertical dimension as well as the horizontal dimension, the differences between the air-to-ground and terrestrial channels cause the placement of the drone-cells to diverge from placement of terrestrial base stations. In this paper, we first highlight the properties of the drone-cell placement problem, and formulate it as a 3-D placement problem with the objective of maximizing the revenue of the network. After some mathematical manipulations, we formulate an equivalent quadratically-constrained mixed integer non-linear optimization problem and propose a computationally efficient numerical solution for this problem. We verify our analytical derivations with numerical simulations and enrich them with discussions which could serve as guidelines for researchers, mobile network operators, and policy makers.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".