Improving Dual-UAV Aided Ground-UAV Bi-Directional Communication Security: Joint UAV Trajectory and Transmit Power Optimization
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper investigates a dual-unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) aided communication system to improve the security of the communication between ground devices and UAVs. Different from the existing works which ignored ground devices mobility and just considered one-way communication security between ground devices and UAVs, we allow the devices to be mobile and consider bi-directional ground-UAV communication security. Specifically, one UAV server communicates with mobile ground devices, and the other UAV jammer is invoked to confuse eavesdroppers. Our objective is to maximize the worst-case average secrecy rate by the joint optimization of UAV trajectory and sender transmit power. To achieve it, we first formulate the worst-case average secrecy rate maximization problem as a constrained Markov decision process (CMDP) under the constraints of UAV flight space, flight speed, energy capacity, anti-collision, and peak transmit power. Then, we design a Deep Deterministic Policy Gradient (DDPG) based algorithm to solve the CMDP. Experiment results demonstrate that our joint optimization scheme can enhance the communication security in terms of the secrecy rate in both UAV-to-ground (U2G) case and ground-to-UAV (G2U) case. Besides, it is observed that UAV trajectory and sender transmit power have different impacts on the communication security in U2G case and G2U case.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it