MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408145244 · doi:10.1109/tmc.2025.3547946

Multi-Agent Moth-Flame Reinforcement Learning Based Broadcast Beam Optimization

2025· article· en· W4408145244 on OpenAlexaff
Haipeng Yao, Tianle Mai, F. Richard Yu

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Photonic Communication Systems
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReinforcement learningComputer scienceReinforcementBeam (structure)Artificial intelligenceMaterials scienceComposite materialStructural engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Currently, beamforming antenna array technologies are of utmost importance in 5G communication systems. These technologies are essential for optimizing the coverage and signal quality of the cellular network. However, the optimization of broadcast beams presents significant challenges due to the complex strategy profile space. Each beam can be configured with different widths and heights, making it difficult for conventional algorithms to handle. To address this issue, we propose a novel approach called Multi-Agent Moth-Flame Reinforcement Learning (MAMF-RL) algorithm for broadcast beam optimization. MAMF-RL combines reinforcement learning and moth-flame optimization algorithms to interactively search for the optimal broadcast beams. By decomposing the problem into multiple single-sector antenna configuration problems, MAMF-RL effectively reduces the algorithm complexity. We conducted experiments utilizing real data in an 18-sector wireless coverage area. To evaluate the performance of our proposed method, we compared it with traditional methods such as the particle swarm algorithm. The results demonstrate that our MAMF-RL model achieves an average coverage rate of 1.82% higher and a 13.74% lower overlapping coverage rate compared to traditional methods.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.966
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.245 · 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.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Mobile ComputingSame topicAdvanced Photonic Communication SystemsFrench-language works237,207