Data Gathering and Energy Transfer Dilemma in UAV-Assisted Flying Access Network for IoT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently, Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) have emerged as an alternative solution to assist wireless networks, thanks to numerous advantages they offer in comparison to terrestrial fixed base stations. For instance, a UAV can be used to embed a flying base station providing an on-demand nomadic access to network services. A UAV can also be used to wirelessly recharge out-of-battery ground devices. In this paper, we aim to deal with both data collection and recharging depleted ground Internet-of-Things (IoT) devices through a UAV station used as a flying base station. To extend the network lifetime, we present a novel use of UAV with energy harvesting module and wireless recharging capabilities. However, the UAV is used as an energy source to empower depleted IoT devices. On one hand, the UAV charges depleted ground IoT devices under three policies: (1) low-battery first scheme; (2) high-battery first scheme; and (3) random scheme. On the other hand, the UAV station collects data from IoT devices that have sufficient energy to transmit their packets, and in the same phase, the UAV exploits the Radio Frequency (RF) signals transmitted by IoT devices to extract and harvest energy. Furthermore, and as the UAV station has a limited coverage time due to its energy constraints, we propose and investigate an efficient trade-off between ground users recharging time and data gathering time. Furthermore, we suggest to control and optimize the UAV trajectory in order to complete its travel within a minimum time, while minimizing the energy spent and/or enhancing the network lifetime. Extensive numerical results and simulations show how the system behaves under different scenarios and using various metrics in which we examine the added value of UAV with energy harvesting module.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".