Fair and Energy-Efficient Coverage Optimization for UAV Placement Problem in the Cellular Network
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) Base Station (BS) placement optimization is an essential operational task to improve the Quality of Service (QoS) in UAV-aided wireless cellular networks. The existing approaches are almost zeroth order methods, and the few first order methods mainly ignore the allocation fairness, computational efficiency, and backhaul constraints. In this paper, we formulate the UAV placement problem as a constrained optimization problem, with the objective of maximizing the fair coverage versus energy consumption while satisfying the backhaul constraints at different time nodes. To guarantee fair QoS allocation, we introduce a novel fairness index to ensure fair communication opportunity and the novel region coverage ratio to avoid excess QoS on covered spots. An accurate and efficient proximal stochastic gradient descent based alternating algorithm that iteratively executes two optimization steps is proposed to optimize the UAV locations, which enables the fast single point-based first order methods to solve the complex problems with constraints. Experiment results manifest that the proposed algorithm performs well both in synthetic data scenario and in real city scenario. Furthermore, the proposed first order algorithm is more efficient than the existing zeroth order algorithm, typically referring to the meta-heuristic method.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".