MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2785141402 · doi:10.1109/wcnc.2018.8377340

Efficient 3D aerial base station placement considering users mobility by reinforcement learning

2018· preprint· en· W2785141402 on OpenAlexaff
Rozhina Ghanavi, Elham Kalantari, Maryam Sabbaghian, Halim Yanıkömeroğlu, Abbas Yongaçoğlu

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicUAV Applications and Optimization
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReinforcement learningBase stationComputer scienceQuality of servicePosition (finance)Computer networkWireless networkReal-time computingBase (topology)Cellular networkService (business)WirelessDistributed computingArtificial intelligenceTelecommunicationsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper considers an aerial base station (aerial-BS) assisted terrestrial network where user mobility is taken into account. User movement changes the network dynamically which may result in performance loss. To avoid this loss, guarantee a minimum quality-of-service (QoS) and possibly increase the QoS, we add an aerial-BS to the network. For fair comparison between the conventional terrestrial network and the aerial-BS assisted one, we keep the total number of BSs identical in both networks. Obtaining the best performance in such networks highly depends on the optimal placement of the aerial-BS. To this end, an algorithm which can rely on general and realistic assumptions and can decide where to go based on the past experiences is required. The proposed approach for this goal is based on a discounted reward reinforcement learning which is known as Q-learning. Simulation results show this method provides an effective placement strategy which increases the QoS of wireless networks when it is needed and promises to find the optimum position of the aerial-BS in discrete environments.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.803
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.218 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicUAV Applications and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207