Opportunistic Data Collection in Cognitive Wireless Sensor Networks: Air–Ground Collaborative Online Planning
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, we study the unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV)-enabled opportunistic data collection in wireless sensor networks (WSNs). The UAV performing remote missions is expected to collect data from the WSN during the return flights. Due to the specified task and safety restrictions, flight trajectory and time of the UAV are strictly constrained, resulting in the limited coverage ability in the data collection process. Moreover, the unknown distribution of active sensors makes it difficult for ground sensors and the UAV to complete the offline optimization of flight mode and transmission. To tackle these problems, we develop an air-ground collaborative online planning method. On the one hand, ground sensors actively form terrestrial transmission clusters to improve the data upload efficiency. After analyzing the Line-of-Sight (LoS) reliability and transmission correlation, we construct a coalition formation game model for the clustering of ground sensors. We discuss the equilibrium property of the game model, which can be achieved by the proposed distributed coalition formation algorithm. On the other hand, to avoid conflicts during the data collection, a data upload protocol is designed. We further discuss various flight speed planning schemes based on different detection capabilities of the UAV. The simulation results show that the performance of ground coalition-based air-ground collaborative online optimization is much better than that of the unilateral data collection by the UAV. Moreover, UAV flight online planning can further improve data uploading efficiency.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it