Energy-Efficient UAV Swarm Assisted MEC With Dynamic Clustering and Scheduling
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
In this paper, the energy-efficient unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) swarm assisted mobile edge computing (MEC) with dynamic clustering and scheduling is studied. In the considered system model, UAVs are divided into multiple swarms, with each swarm consisting of a leader UAV and several follower UAVs to provide computing services to end-users. Unlike existing work, we allow UAVs to dynamically cluster into different swarms, i.e., each follower UAV can change its leader based on the time-varying spatial positions, updated application placement, etc. in a dynamic manner. Meanwhile, UAVs are required to dynamically schedule their energy replenishment, application placement, trajectory planning and task delegation. With the aim of maximizing the long-term energy efficiency of the UAV swarm assisted MEC system, a joint optimization problem of dynamic clustering and scheduling is formulated. Taking into account the underlying cooperation and competition among intelligent UAVs, we further reformulate this optimization problem as a combination of a series of strongly coupled multi-agent stochastic games, and then propose a novel reinforcement learning-based UAV swarm dynamic coordination (RLDC) algorithm for obtaining the equilibrium. Simulations are conducted to evaluate the performance of the RLDC algorithm and demonstrate its superiority over counterparts.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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