MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399767788 · doi:10.1109/jiot.2024.3416054

Knowledge-Collaboration-Based Resource Allocation in 6G IoT: A Graph Attention RL Approach

2024· article· en· W4399767788 on OpenAlexaff
Zhongwei Huang, F. Richard Yu, Jun Cai

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Internet of Things Journal · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicIoT and Edge/Fog Computing
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersScience and Technology Program of SuzhouNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsComputer scienceResource allocationGraphResource management (computing)Distributed computingGraph theoryTheoretical computer scienceComputer network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In future 6G-enabled Internet of Things (IoT), users and devices will be divided into numerous distributed domains with smaller base station coverage due to the utilization of terahertz high-frequency band communication. Deep reinforcement learning (DRL) agents will be increasingly deployed in the domain to achieve intelligent service provisioning and resource allocation. However, the existing DRL-based method faces the problem of repeated model training and poor generalization ability when service demand fluctuates and environmental changes occur. In addition, limited training samples in each domain also lead to insufficient model training. Inspired by the collaborative learning of human knowledge, we propose a knowledge collaboration-based resource allocation mechanism for future 6G-enabled IoT and address two basic issues: 1) which agent should collaborate with and 2) how to collaborate. Specifically, we first model the distributed network as a graph and use graph attention (GAT) to capture the fluctuant service demands and time-varying resource capacities in temporal and spatial domains, and then calculate the similarity between the agents. We further propose a collective reinforcement learning (CRL) algorithm that facilitates knowledge collaboration between the agents through the policy distribution. Simulation results verify that the proposed GAT-CRL achieves fast convergence as deep deterministic policy gradient (DDPG) in 4K steps, computing the similarity score more accurately with the increasing attention heads, and achieves higher successful flow than the soft actor-critic (about 3.6%–5.4%) and DDPG (about 14.6%–21%) when adapting to unseen traffic patterns/loads and increasing topology scales.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.959
Threshold uncertainty score0.630

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.249 · 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

Citations17
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Internet of Things JournalSame topicIoT and Edge/Fog ComputingFrench-language works237,207