MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4361029767 · doi:10.1109/jiot.2023.3262687

Joint Trajectory Planning, Application Placement, and Energy Renewal for UAV-Assisted MEC: A Triple-Learner-Based Approach

2023· article· en· W4361029767 on OpenAlexaff
Jialiuyuan Li, Changyan Yi, Jiayuan Chen, Kun Zhu, Jun Cai

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Internet of Things Journal · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicUAV Applications and Optimization
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsComputer scienceTrajectoryJoint (building)Motion planningEnergy (signal processing)Real-time computingSimulationArtificial intelligenceRobotEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, an energy-efficient scheduling problem for multiple unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV)-assisted mobile-edge computing (MEC) is studied. In the considered model, UAVs act as mobile edge servers to provide computing services to end-users with task offloading requests. Unlike existing works, we allow UAVs to determine not only their trajectories but also the decisions of whether returning to the depot for replenishing energies and updating application placements (due to their limited batteries and storage capacities). With the aim of maximizing the long-term energy efficiency of all UAVs, i.e., the total amount of offloaded tasks computed by all UAVs over their total energy consumption, a joint optimization of UAVs’ trajectory planning, energy renewal, and application placement is formulated. Taking into account the underlying cooperation and competition among intelligent UAVs, we reformulate such optimization problem as three coupled multiagent stochastic games. Since the prior environment information is unavailable to UAVs, we propose a novel triple-learner-based reinforcement learning (TLRL) approach, integrating a trajectory learner, an energy learner, and an application learner, for reaching equilibriums. Moreover, we analyze the convergence and the complexity of the proposed solution. Simulations are conducted to evaluate the performance of the proposed TLRL approach, and demonstrate its superiority over counterparts.

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)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Citations47
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Internet of Things JournalSame topicUAV Applications and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207