MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6991193146

Game theoretic models for the analysis of UAV-aided wireless communications

2023· dissertation· en· W6991193146 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueMspace (University of Manitoba) · 2023
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicEngineering and Agricultural Innovations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSoftware deploymentPoolingOverhead (engineering)Wireless networkResource allocationResource management (computing)Key (lock)Base stationResource (disambiguation)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aerial networks, utilizing Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) have recently gained significant attention as they will play a key role in shaping the future of wireless networks including beyond 5G and 6G. This thesis addresses challenges in utilizing UAVs for wireless communication networks, focusing on two deployment scenarios: UAV-only networks and integrated aerial-terrestrial networks (IATN) with both UAVs and base stations (BSs). The first deployment scenario is applicable in situations like natural disasters, where UAV deployment is well-suited for establishing temporary infrastructure. In such cases, optimizing resource utilization is important. Further, in such scenarios, there could be a limited availability of information. Therefore, we study the resource sharing problem in a UAVs-based network under uncertainty. Specifically, the UAVs cooperate in serving the users while pooling their spectrum and energy resources in the absence of prior knowledge about different system characteristics such as the amount of available power at the other UAVs. Regarding solutions, centralized management requires comprehensive global network information accessible to a central controller for optimization. These methods, however, suffer from excessive overhead and computational cost. Therefore, we utilize Bayesian Coalition Formation Game (BCFG) to address the resource sharing problem in a cooperative UAV network with uncertainty. The second scenario involves leveraging UAVs to complement terrestrial networks, enhancing connectivity through unique features like enhanced line-of-sight, mobility, and flexibility. Consequently, efficient cooperation between aerial and terrestrial networks holds the potential to introduce an additional dimension for enhancing the user experience and optimizing network resource utilization as users can utilize both LoS and non-LoS channels, different altitudes, and types of BSs. Therefore, we present a framework to optimize the deployment of aerial network and cooperation among aerial-terrestrial network such that the network deployment cost efficiency (i.e. the ratio of network sum-rate and deployment-plus-energy-cost) is maximized. The cooperation among UAVs and BSs is supported with clustered cell-free-massive-MIMO (C-CF-M-MIMO). Our approach involves a grid-based joint UAV density and location optimization, pilot-contamination aware user clustering, and distributed coalition game for UAVs and BSs cooperation.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.185 · 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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMspace (University of Manitoba)Same topicEngineering and Agricultural InnovationsFrench-language works237,207