MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2902997214 · doi:10.1109/glocomw.2018.8644511

Coverage and Rate Analysis for Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Base Stations with LoS/NLoS Propagation

2018· article· en· W2902997214 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicUAV Applications and Optimization
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNon-line-of-sight propagationBase stationComputer scienceNakagami distributionRayleigh fadingFadingChannel (broadcasting)SimulationAlgorithmTelecommunicationsWireless

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of unmanned aerial vehicle base stations (UAV-BSs) as airborne base stations has recently gained great attention. In this paper, we model a network of UAV-BSs as a Poisson point process (PPP) operating at a certain altitude above the ground users. We adopt an air-to-ground (A2G) channel model that incorporates line-of-sight (LoS) and non-line-of-sight (NLoS) propagation. Thus, UAV-BSs can be decomposed into two independent inhomogeneous PPPs. Under the assumption that NLoS and LoS channels experience Rayleigh and Nakagami-m fading, respectively, we derive approximations for the coverage probability and average achievable rate, and show that these approximations match the simulations with negligible errors. Numerical simulations have shown that the coverage probability and average achievable rate decrease as the height of the UAV-BSs increases.

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.

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 categoriesnone
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 score0.716
Threshold uncertainty score0.209

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.202 · 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

Quick stats

Citations69
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicUAV Applications and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207