MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Air-Ground Collaborative Mobile Crowdsensing by Predictive Multi-Agent Deep Reinforcement Learning

2025· article· W7118992878 on OpenAlexaff
Hu He, J. C. Peng, Lin X. Cai, Weirong Liu

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldComputer Science
TopicMobile Crowdsensing and Crowdsourcing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsCrowdsensingTrajectoryReinforcement learningVisualizationMobile deviceData collectionActivity recognitionDeep learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mobile crowdsensing (MCS) by human participants and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) is an emerging air-ground collaborative data collection paradigm by navigating a group of UAVs to collaborate with human participants to provide large-scale and fine-grained sensing services. In this paper, we aim to optimize the trajectory design of UAVs by jointly considering the collected data volume, geographical sensing fairness, and limited energy reserve during the serving period. To achieve the long-term serving objective, we propose a human participants distribution prediction based multi-agent deep reinforcement learning method for efficient UAV navigation to collaborate with human participants in performing MCS tasks. Specifically, we first introduce a region division based human participant spatial distribution prediction method to help UAVs to collaborate with human participants by the predictive mobility flows. Then, we present the multi-agent proximal policy optimization (MAPPO) based method for efficient UAV navigation decision-making. Extensive simulations and trajectory visualization using the real-world mobility dataset in KAIST show that the proposed method consistently outperforms the state-of-the-art in terms of the energy efficiency when varying the number of UAVs and human participants.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication
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 score0.935
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.244 · 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
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMobile Crowdsensing and CrowdsourcingFrench-language works237,207