Distributed Cooperation Under Uncertainty in Drone-Based Wireless Networks: A Bayesian Coalitional Game
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We study the resource sharing problem in a drone-based wireless network by considering a distributed control setting under uncertainty (e.g., due to lack of full information). The drones cooperate in serving the users while pooling their spectrum and energy resources in the absence of prior knowledge about different system characteristics such as the amount of available power at the other drones. Compared to the state-of-the-art research in drone-based wireless networks, which is mainly based on the assumption of accurate global information availability at every drone, our setting is realistic and practical. We cast the efficient resource pooling problem as a Bayesian cooperative game in which the agents (drones) engage in a coalition formation process, where the goal is to maximize the overall transmission rate of the network. The drones update their beliefs by using a novel technique that combines the maximum likelihood estimation with Kullback-Leibler divergence. We propose a decision-making strategy for repeated coalition formation that converges to a stable coalition structure. We analyze the performance of the proposed approach by both theoretical analysis and simulations. We provide the comparison of our scheme with the baseline and the socially optimal solution obtained from the exhaustive search. Simulation results demonstrate the superior performance of the proposed method in terms of the sum-rate of the network, the individual rate of the drones, and convergence properties.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".