MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Resource Allocation in UAV-Assisted Wireless Networks Using Reinforcement Learning

2020· article· en· W3131033905 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Phuong Luong, François Gagnon, Fabrice Labeau

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicUAV Applications and Optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMcGill University
KeywordsBeamformingComputer scienceTelecommunications linkConvergence (economics)Channel state informationWirelessUnavailabilityChannel (broadcasting)Convex optimizationMathematical optimizationWireless networkComputer networkRegular polygonMathematicsTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this work, we consider the downlink of an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) assisted cellular network consisting of multiple cooperative UAVs, whose operations are coordinated by a central ground controller using the fronthaul communications, to serve multiple ground users. A problem of jointly designing UAV's location, transmit beamforming, as well as UAV-user association is formulated in the form of mixed integer nonlinear programming (MINLP) to maximize the sum user achievable rate while considering the constraints of limited fronthaul capacity. Solving the formulated problem is computationally hard owing to the its non-convex nature and the unavailability of channel state information (CSI) due to the undetermined and flexible movement of UAVs. To tackle these effects, we propose a novel algorithm exploiting the deep Q-learning approach to take the hassles of unavailable CSI for determining UAV's location and invoking the difference of convex (DC) based optimization method to efficiently solve for the UAV <sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">'</sup> s transmit beamforming and UAV-user association given the determined UAV <sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">'</sup> s location. The algorithm recursively solves the formulated problem until convergence. Numerical results show that our design outperforms the existing work in terms of algorithmic convergence and network performance and achieve a gain of up to 70% compared to the existing algorithms.

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 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 score0.926
Threshold uncertainty score0.309

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.193 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicUAV Applications and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207