Managing Sets of Flying Base Stations Using Energy Efficient 3D Trajectory Planning in Cellular Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) in cellular networks have garnered considerable interest. One of their applications is as flying base stations (FBSs), which can increase coverage and quality of service (QoS). Because FBSs are battery-powered, regulating their energy usage is a vital aspect of their use; therefore, the appropriate placement and trajectories of FBSs throughout their operation are critical to overcoming this challenge. In this article, we propose a method of solving a multi-FBS 3D trajectory problem that considers FBS energy consumption, operation time, flight distance limits, and intercell interference constraints. Our method is divided into two phases: FBS placement and FBS trajectory. In taking this approach, we break the problem into several snapshots. First, we find the minimum number of FBSs required and their proper 3D positions in each snapshot. Then, between every two snapshots, the trajectory phase is executed. The optimal path between the origin and destination of each FEB is determined during the trajectory phase by utilizing a proposed binary linear problem (BLP) model that considers FBS energy consumption and flight distance constraints. Then, the shortest path for each FBS is determined while taking obstacles and collision avoidance into consideration. The number of FBSs needed may vary between snapshots, so we present an FBS set management (FSM) technique to manage the set of FBSs and their power. The results demonstrate that the proposed approach is applicable to real-world situations and that the outcomes are consistent with expectations.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".