MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Power Usage of Energy Harvesting Sensors with a Drone Sink: A Reinforcement Learning Based Approach

2021· article· en· W4210642890 on OpenAlexafffund
Sachitha Kusaladharma, Raviraj Adve

Bibliographic record

Venue2021 IEEE Global Communications Conference (GLOBECOM) · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnergy Harvesting in Wireless Networks
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMarkov decision processReinforcement learningDroneWireless sensor networkComputer scienceFadingReal-time computingPower controlEnergy harvestingMarkov processPath lossTransmission (telecommunications)Energy (signal processing)WirelessPower (physics)Computer networkChannel (broadcasting)TelecommunicationsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wireless sensor networks (WSNs) can utilize radio frequency energy harvesting from ambient power sources for continuous operation, while drones acting as sink nodes increase the reliability of transmission and decrease a sensor's energy usage. In this paper, we attempt to optimize the transmit power of a sensor such that the overall outage probability is minimized. The sensors are assumed to have a finite-level battery and a buffer with discrete states. Energy is harvested from ambient energy arising from cellular base stations distributed according to a Poisson point process. The sensor's data is transmitted to a drone whenever its buffer becomes full. We consider two scenarios for the drone: i) hovering, and ii) moving on a fixed trajectory. Moreover, we utilize different path loss and fading models for the sensor-drone links due to their line-of-sight nature. An outage occurs due to both transmission outage and buffer overflow. We formulate the problem as a Markov decision process, and utilize a Q-learning based algorithm to learn the power control policy. Our numerical results show that the proposed policy significantly outperforms both the full and single-step energy usage policies. Moreover, it is robust enough to handle environmental/channel changes without a need for re-training.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue2021 IEEE Global Communications Conference (GLOBECOM)Same topicEnergy Harvesting in Wireless NetworksFrench-language works237,207