MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Impact of varying UAV traffic on terrestrial users in 5G cellular network

2025· article· W7127357949 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Janfizza Bukhari, Rajveer Singh Brar, Amitabh Chhabra, Walter Mérida

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldEngineering
TopicUAV Applications and Optimization
Canadian institutionsRogers Communications (Canada)University of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCellular networkNoise (video)DroneInterference (communication)MATLABWork (physics)Cellular communication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Next-generation cellular networks present an opportunity to enable beyond visual line of sight (BVLoS) connectivity to unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). This work envisions and analyzes a cellular ecosystem where UAVs can coexist with terrestrial users (TUs). This article presents a proof-of-concept system-level simulations setup to understand the impact of UAV traffic on TUs. In the simulation setup, a test network is emulated in MATLAB based upon a Tier-1 cellular network in Canada. It is assumed that the existing down-tilted antennas optimized for TUs would serve the UAV traffic from their sidelobes. An urban scenario with inter-site distance (ISD) of 700 meters is implemented and the impact on TUs is studied by varying UAV traffic per sector, UAV locations, UAVs flying height and cellular frequency. This study is conducted on a lower band at 600 MHz and mid band at 2500 MHz at three UAV altitudes 120,80 and 60 meters. Simulation results reveal that in urban areas, the average SINR at user terminals is reduced by 3.97 -to-5.25dB for 50 TUs when there are 4 to 5 UAVs in the surrounding sectors (7 cells) as compared to when no UAVs are present. But still, the available signal-to-interference and noise ratio (SINR) support reasonably good terrestrial services.

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 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.088
Threshold uncertainty score0.940

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicUAV Applications and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207