Coverage Analysis for UAV-Assisted Cellular Networks in Rural Areas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite coverage enhancement in rural areas is one of the main requirements in next generations of wireless networks (i.e., 5G and 6G), the low expected profit prevents telecommunication providers from investing in such sparsely populated areas. Hence, cost efficient alternatives are required for extending the cellular infrastructure to these regions. A concrete mathematical model that characterizes and clearly captures the aforementioned problem might be a key-enabler for studying the efficiency of any potential solution. Unfortunately, the commonly used mathematical tools that model large scale wireless networks are not designed to capture the unfairness, in terms of cellular coverage, suffered by exurban and rural areas. In big cities, in fact, cellular deployment is essentially capacity driven and thus cellular base station densities are maximum in the town centers and decline when getting far from them. In this paper, a new stochastic geometry-based model is implemented in order to show the coverage spatial variation among urban, suburban, and exurban settlements. Indeed, by implementing inhomogeneous Poisson point processes (PPPs) it is possible to study the performance metrics in a realistic scenario where terrestrial base stations (TBSs) are clustered around the urban center while outer aerial base stations (ABSs) are uniformly distributed outside an urban exclusion zone. Based on this, our simulation results can quantify the improvement, in terms of coverage probability, that even a surprisingly low density of ABSs can bring to peripheral regions depending on the extension of the exclusion zone, enabling us to draw insightful considerations.
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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".