UAV-Assisted Maritime Legitimate Surveillance: Joint Trajectory Design and Power Allocation
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 novel maritime wireless surveillance scenario, where a legitimate monitor vessel moves around to eavesdrop the suspicious communication from a suspicious unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) to a suspicious vessel with the help of a cooperative UAV. Specifically, the cooperative UAV can adjust its jamming power and trajectory to exactly control the transmission rate of the suspicious link, thus improving the monitor vessel's surveillance performance. Furthermore, since the cooperative UAV cannot land or replenish energy on the sea surface, its jamming power allocation on the ocean should be carefully designed by the energy thresholds. Under such setup, we formulate a sum eavesdropping rate maximization problem, which jointly optimizes the jamming power and three-dimensional (3D) trajectory of the cooperative UAV, as well as the two-dimensional (2D) trajectory of the monitor vessel. To address this non-convex optimization problem, we decompose the design problem into three subproblems and propose an iterative algorithm to find its suboptimal solution. Numerical results show that the proposed jamming-assisted 3D joint design can significantly improve the eavesdropping rate and save the jamming power compared to the benchmark schemes.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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