MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390422128 · doi:10.1109/jiot.2023.3348590

Multitimescale Control and Communications With Deep Reinforcement Learning—Part I: Communication-Aware Vehicle Control

2023· article· en· W4390422128 on OpenAlexaff
T.S. Liu, Lei Lei, Kan Zheng, Xuemin Shen

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Internet of Things Journal · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSmart Grid Security and Resilience
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceReinforcement learningControl (management)Computer networkArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An intelligent decision-making system enabled by vehicle-to-everything (V2X) communications is essential to achieve safe and efficient autonomous driving (AD), where two types of decisions have to be made at different timescales, i.e., vehicle control and radio resource allocation (RRA) decisions. The interplay between RRA and vehicle control necessitates their collaborative design. In this two-part paper (Part I and Part II), taking platoon control (PC) as an example use case, we propose a joint optimization framework of multitimescale control and communications (MTCCs) MTCCs based on deep reinforcement learning (DRL). In this article (Part I), we first decompose the problem into a communication-aware DRL-based PC subproblem and a control-aware DRL-based RRA subproblem. Then, we focus on the PC subproblem assuming an RRA policy is given, and propose the MTCC- PC algorithm to learn an efficient PC policy. To improve the PC performance under random observation delay, the PC state space is augmented with the observation delay and PC action history. Moreover, the reward function with respect to the augmented state is defined to construct an augmented state Markov decision process (MDP). It is proved that the optimal policy for the augmented state MDP is optimal for the original PC problem with observation delay. Different from most existing works on communication-aware control, the MTCC- PC algorithm is trained in a delayed environment generated by the fine-grained embedded simulation of cellular vehicle-to-everything communications rather than by a simple stochastic delay model. Finally, experiments are performed to compare the performance of MTCC- PC with those of the baseline DRL algorithms.

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 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.132
Threshold uncertainty score0.411

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations14
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Internet of Things JournalSame topicSmart Grid Security and ResilienceFrench-language works237,207