MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4285286189 · doi:10.1109/jiot.2022.3173211

A Reinforcement-Learning-Based Beam Adaptation for Underwater Optical Wireless Communications

2022· article· en· W4285286189 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Internet of Things Journal · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOptical Wireless Communication Technologies
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBeamwidthComputer scienceOptical wirelessUnderwaterReinforcement learningFree-space optical communicationWirelessUnderwater acoustic communicationOptical communicationNetwork packetBandwidth (computing)Real-time computingTelecommunicationsComputer networkElectronic engineeringArtificial intelligenceEngineeringAntenna (radio)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Underwater optical wireless communications (UOWCs) have recently appeared as an attractive solution for many applications, such as remote controlling and sensing due to its advantages, such as high transmission rate, ultrawide bandwidth, and low latency. However, due to the harsh underwater conditions, UOWC faces challenges, such as water absorption, scattering, and pointing-acquisition-and-tracking (PAT) problems. This is mainly due to the dynamicity existing underwater. Consequently, this leads to packet loss and hence deteriorates the reliability and link quality of such networks. Such a problem can affect the degree of connectivity and end-to-end (E2E) performance of the communication system. The existing solutions in the literature are based on predefined models, assuming full knowledge of the environment. However, such models do not optimally treat the dynamicity existing underwater. This article proposes novel beam adaptation methods based on reinforcement learning (RL) for point-to-point UOWC. The first method aims to optimize the light beamwidth; the second method focuses on adapting the beam orientation, whereas the last one optimizes both the light’s beamwidth and beam orientation. Our proposed RL-based solutions yield optimal positioning and beamwidth of the light source and improve the considered communication link’s success rate. They also guarantee better link quality in terms of signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) compared to the uncertainty disk static method for four different underwater environments, including pure seawater, clean ocean, coastal ocean, and turbid harbor.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.874
Threshold uncertainty score0.535

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.227 · 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