MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391696905 · doi:10.1109/tr.2024.3357356

Facilitating URLLC vis-á-vis UAV-Enabled Relaying for MEC Systems in 6-G Networks

2024· article· en· W4391696905 on OpenAlexaff
Ali Ranjha, Diala Naboulsi, Mohamed El-Emary, François Gagnon

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Reliability · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Optical Network Technologies
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceReliability theoryReliability engineeringComputer networkEngineeringSystems engineeringFailure rate

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The futuristic sixth-generation (6-G) networks will empower ultrareliable and low latency communications (URLLC), enabling a wide array of mission-critical applications such as mobile edge computing (MEC) systems, which are largely unsupported by fixed communication infrastructure. To remedy this issue, unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) has recently come to the limelight to facilitate MEC for internet of things (IoT) devices as they provide desirable line-of-sight (LoS) communications compared to fixed terrestrial networks, thanks to their added flexibility and 3-D positioning. In this article, we consider UAV-enabled relaying for MEC systems for uplink transmissions in 6-G networks, and we aim to optimize mission completion time subject to the constraints of resource allocation, including UAV transmit power, UAV CPU frequency, decoding error rate, blocklength, communication bandwidth, and task partitioning as well as 3-D UAV positioning. Moreover, to solve the nonconvex optimization problem, we propose three different algorithms, including successive convex approximations, altered genetic algorithm (AGA), and smart exhaustive search. Thereafter, based on time-complexity, execution time, and convergence analysis, we select AGA to solve the given optimization problem. Simulation results demonstrate that the proposed algorithm can successfully minimize the mission completion time, perform power allocation at the UAV side to mitigate information leakage and eavesdropping as well as map a 3-D UAV positioning, yielding better results compared to the fixed benchmark submethods. Lastly, subject to 3-D UAV positioning, AGA can also effectively reduce the decoding error rate for supporting URLLC services.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Citations18
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on ReliabilitySame topicAdvanced Optical Network TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207