On the Coverage of UAV-Assisted SWIPT Networks With Nonlinear EH Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) with huge-capacity batteries could be employed to wirelessly charge the ground sensor users (GSUs) and enhance the coverage of aerial wireless networks in outdoor Internet of Things (IoT). This paper investigates the information and energy coverage of UAV-enabled simultaneous wireless information and power transfer (SWIPT) networks. Both power splitting (PS) and time switching (TS) receiver architectures are considered. By using stochastic geometry approach, the general and explicit expressions of the information coverage probability (ICP), the energy coverage probability (ECP) and the joint information and energy coverage probability (JIECP) are derived under the nonlinear and linear energy harvesting (EH) models, respectively. Particularly, the Laplace transform and the probability generating functional (PGFL) are used to derive the ICP. And, Campbell’s theorem and the maximum function are applied to obtain the ECP and the JIECP, respectively. To achieve the optimal UAVs’ deployment density, the maximization optimization problems are formulated for the PS-based and TS-based systems, respectively. By using the series expansion of$Q(x)$($Q$-function) with large$x$, the closed-form approximating optimal solutions to the formulated problems are obtained. Monte Carlo simulations validate the correction of our obtained theoretical results, and numerical results show that the performance of the PS-based system is superior to that of the TS-based one. Moreover, when the energy requirement of GSUs or the transmit power of UAVs is relatively large, or when the information requirement of GSUs or the UAV deployment density is relatively small, compared with the nonlinear EH model, the analysis bias caused by traditional linear EH model is relatively large and in these cases, traditional linear EH model cannot be used to replace the nonlinear EH one for the system performance analysis or optimal system design.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".