MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Joint Computation and Communication Resource Allocation for Unmanned Aerial Vehicle NOMA Systems

2023· article· en· W4393242466 on OpenAlexaff
Tan Do‐Duy, Dang Van Huynh, Emiliano Garcia‐Palacios, Tuan-Vu Cao, Vishal Sharma, Trung Q. Duong

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicUAV Applications and Optimization
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNomaComputer scienceJoint (building)ComputationResource allocationResource management (computing)Resource (disambiguation)DroneComputer networkDistributed computingReal-time computingAeronauticsTelecommunications linkEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper explores the integration of unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) systems in a dual-function capacity, serving as both remote base stations and mobile edge servers for offloaded computational tasks from remote users utilising non-orthogonal multiple access (NOMA) scheme. This challenge of minimising latency is addressed by formulating a comprehensive problem that encompasses key computation and communication variables, such as user transmit power, user association, and computing resource allocation. The complexity arises from the intricate interplay between binary and continuous variables, as well as the presence of non-convex constraints. To overcome these challenges, we present an innovative alternating optimisation approach that iteratively tackles the problem. The effectiveness of the proposed solution in reducing total latency and optimising the resource allocation within the considered system model is demonstrated using simulations. Furthermore, this work sheds light on the potential of leveraging UAV systems for enhancing communication and computation performance, offering insights into practical strategies for latency-sensitive applications.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.706
Threshold uncertainty score0.277

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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.204 · 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

Citations7
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicUAV Applications and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207