Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 42 references

Energy-Efficient Integrated Communication and Computation via Non-Terrestrial Networks with Uncertainty Awareness

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a block coordinate descent algorithm, built on a Bernstein-type reformulation of Gaussian phase uncertainty, minimizes weighted energy across ground offloading, UAV computation, UAV-satellite forwarding, and UAV…

desk verdict Solid incremental optimization paper for UAV-satellite edge computing with a real but unproven robust guarantee; deserves peer review, needs a fix on the Eq. (29) approximation. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.01243 v1 pith:LN47RVVM submitted 2025-06-02 eess.SP

Xiao Tang , Yudan Jiang , Ruonan Zhang , Qinghe Du , Jinxin Liu , Naijin Liu This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SP
keywords integratedcommunicationandcomputationnon-terrestrialnetworkUAVtrajectoryoptimizationchanceconstraintsBernstein-typeinequalityrobustbeamformingenergyefficiencyGaussianphaseuncertainty
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish that energy for a three-stage non-terrestrial pipeline, where ground nodes offload data to a UAV, the UAV computes it, and the UAV forwards results to a satellite, can be jointly minimized across scheduling, offloading amounts, per-slot time split, transmit beamforming, and UAV trajectory, even when the UAV-satellite channel phases are uncertain. The uncertainty is modeled as Gaussian phase error, and the per-slot outage chance constraints are converted into deterministic Bernstein-type inequalities so that a block coordinate descent algorithm can solve the problem. If the central claim is right, remote and energy-limited users could get an operating point that provably meets a chosen outage probability while keeping weighted energy consumption lower than non-robust or fixed-trajectory alternatives, which is the practical reason to care.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Bernstein-type inequality for quadratic forms of Gaussian random vectors, applied after a second-order approximation of the exponential phase term $\exp(j\tilde{\theta}_n)$ in the UAV-satellite channel gain. This converts the probabilistic constraint (25) into the deterministic matrix constraints (33a)--(33c) involving $Q_n$, $r_n$, and $s_n$. Around this core, the solution uses a semidefinite rank-one penalty for beamforming, successive convex approximation for the time allocation and trajectory subproblems, and a block coordinate descent loop that iterates the four subproblems until the weighted energy stops decreasing.

What would settle it

Take the optimized beamformers and rerun them under the true exponential phase model $\exp(j\tilde{\theta})$ instead of the polynomial approximation, drawing Gaussian phase errors at the default variance and at larger variances; if the empirical outage frequency exceeds the target $\epsilon_n=0.2$ at moderate variance, the Bernstein reformulation does not preserve the original chance constraint.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The core discovery is that the outage-constrained energy minimization remains tractable if the angular phase uncertainty in the UAV-satellite link is Gaussian. After rewriting the chance constraint as a quadratic form in the random phase error and approximating the exponential phase factor by a polynomial, the Bernstein-type inequality yields a set of deterministic semidefinite constraints that the paper argues are sufficient for the original outage guarantee. The resulting block coordinate descent algorithm alternately solves convex relaxations for offloading and scheduling, time allocation, rank-one beamforming, and trajectory and power, and the simulations show that the robust design keeps the empirical completion ratio above the threshold while non-robust designs fail nearly every trial, at the price of a modest energy increase.

Load-bearing premise

The whole robust guarantee rests on the assumption that replacing the true random phase term by a low-order polynomial approximation is accurate enough that the resulting deterministic constraint still describes the original outage requirement, which is only reliable when the phase-error variance is small.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Longer mission horizons let the UAV fly closer to its most propulsion-efficient speed, producing smoother trajectories and lower total energy, while shorter horizons force closer approaches to ground nodes and sharply increase computation energy.
  • The robust design meets the specified outage probability across the tested settings, whereas the non-robust counterpart violates it in nearly all Monte Carlo trials.
  • Optimized trajectories trade off UAV propulsion energy against ground-node transmission energy, while fixed-trajectory designs save node energy but pay much more in propulsion.
  • The weighted objective lets the operator emphasize either ground-node battery life or UAV battery life by choosing $\eta_1$ and $\eta_2$.
  • The proposed framework adapts to different time lengths, data amounts, and computation capabilities, with energy rising steeply when the allowed time shrinks because computation energy scales cubically with frequency.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper leaves implicit that the same Bernstein-style reformulation could absorb other Gaussian uncertainties in the UAV-satellite geometry, such as ephemeris error or UAV jitter, by folding them into the phase-error variance.
  • A natural stress test, not reported in the paper, is to increase the phase-error variance well beyond the simulated value and check whether the empirical outage probability still respects $\epsilon_n$; the polynomial approximation in Eq. (29) is the first place this would break.
  • The weighted-energy objective suggests a practical tuning knob: operators with very constrained ground-node batteries should raise $\eta_1$, while operators worried about UAV endurance should raise $\eta_2$, with the same algorithm applied unchanged.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies a UAV-satellite integrated communication and computation system in which ground nodes offload data to a UAV, the UAV performs edge computation, and the UAV forwards results to a satellite. The objective is to minimize a weighted sum of ground-node transmission energy, UAV computation and forwarding energy, and UAV propulsion energy, subject to data-offloading, computation-capacity, scheduling, trajectory, power, and UAV-satellite outage constraints. The UAV-satellite phase error is modeled as Gaussian, and the outage constraints are converted into deterministic form using a second-order Taylor approximation followed by a Bernstein-type inequality. The resulting problem is decomposed into four subproblems and solved by block coordinate descent with successive convex approximation. Simulations compare robust, non-robust, and fixed-trajectory designs in terms of trajectory, offloading, energy breakdown, and outage satisfaction.

Significance. If the derivations are correct, the paper offers a useful framework for energy-efficient integrated communication and computation in non-terrestrial networks with a principled treatment of angular uncertainty. The problem formulation is coherent and practically motivated, and the paper makes a genuine effort to verify robustness through Monte Carlo-style histograms of the completion ratio. The use of Bernstein-type inequalities for Gaussian quadratic chance constraints is standard, and the decomposition into offloading/scheduling, time allocation, beamforming, and trajectory subproblems is natural. The simulations show plausible qualitative behavior, such as higher energy consumption under robustness and under fixed trajectories. However, the central robust-guarantee claim currently rests on an unquantified approximation and a few incompletely specified steps, so the significance cannot be fully assessed until those gaps are closed.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. V-A, Eq. (29)] The replacement of the exact quadratic form exp^H(j\tilde{\theta}_n) Z_n exp(j\tilde{\theta}_n) by the second-order Taylor polynomial in Eq. (29) is stated as an approximation with no error bound and no statement that it is conservative. Since the phase error is Gaussian and therefore has unbounded support, the omitted higher-order terms are nonzero with positive probability. The Bernstein-type conditions in Eq. (33) are applied to the polynomial in Eq. (32), not to the original random constraint in Eq. (28), so a feasible point of the reformulated problem (35) is not proven to satisfy the original chance constraint (25). The simulation in Fig. 4(e) checks only one phase-error standard deviation (50/360 degrees, about 0.139 rad) and does not sweep the variance to identify a valid regime. This is a load-bearing gap: either a conservatism proof for Eq. (29) is needed, or the valid range of phase-error variance must be established, or the claim must be restricted accordingly.
  2. [Sec. V-A, Eq. (34)] The symbol \xi in Eqs. (34a) and (34b) is never defined. The deterministic reformulation (33) is therefore not fully specified. From comparison with Eq. (32) it appears that \xi should be the phase-error standard deviation \varrho, but this identification is missing and should be stated explicitly. Without it, the Bernstein scaling in (33) cannot be checked for correctness.
  3. [Sec. V-B, first subproblem around Eq. (36)] The scheduling variables \chi_{n,k} are relaxed to the interval [0,1], and the text states that the integral variables are restored by rounding, but no rounding rule is given and no proof is provided that rounding preserves feasibility of the constraints (9), (11), (12), and (33). In particular, Eq. (9) couples \chi_{n,k} with l_{n,k}, so rounding a fractional schedule to a single active node per slot may force l_{n,k}=0 for nodes that were assigned positive offloaded data in the relaxed solution, violating the total-data constraints in Eq. (11). This feasibility gap affects the very first subproblem and therefore the validity of the overall block coordinate descent solution.
  4. [Sec. V-B, Eqs. (43)-(44)] The inequality in Eq. (43) is stated as 1/(1-\rho_n) \leq (1+\rho_n-2\rho_n^\circ)/(1-\rho_n^\circ)^2, but the function 1/(1-\rho) is convex in \rho, so its first-order Taylor expansion is a lower bound, not an upper bound. Consequently, the replacement in Eq. (44) does not provide the advertised upper-bound counterpart and may admit solutions that violate the original constraint (42). The successive convex approximation for subproblem (37) is therefore not valid as written, and the convergence of the block coordinate descent algorithm to a feasible point is not established.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. I, organization paragraph] The text says "Sec. V analyzes the formulated problem with proposed algorithm design and Sec. V provides the simulation results," but the simulations appear in Sec. VI; the section reference should be corrected.
  2. [Table I] The table lists "\sigma_1^2 = -105 dBm" while the system model uses \sigma_0^2 for the ground-air noise power; the subscript should be made consistent.
  3. [Eq. (7) and Eq. (23)] The notation for the UAV-satellite distance d_n^{(SU)} is used before the uncertainty model is introduced, and Eq. (23) writes the phase as depending on d^{(SU)} and \phi^{(SU)}; a brief definition of \phi^{(SU)} at first use would improve readability.
  4. [Fig. 4(e)] The histograms are informative, but the caption and text should state explicitly how many channel realizations were used to estimate the outage probability, so that the empirical guarantee can be assessed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the Bernstein-type reformulation and block coordinate descent solve the formulated model; energy models come from standard external references, and the Eq. (29) Taylor approximation is a correctness concern, not a claimed equivalence.

full rationale

The paper's derivation is self-contained with respect to circularity. The objective (21) sums directly modeled offloading, computation, forwarding, and propulsion energies, and the constraints (9)-(25) are stated from the system model. The outage constraint (25) is converted using a second-order approximation (29) attributed to an external lemma [41] and a Bernstein-type sufficient condition from [42]; the paper labels (29) as an approximation and (33) as a sufficient condition, so the deterministic constraints are not being presented as equivalent by construction. The simulation in Fig. 4(e) evaluates the true random channel rather than a quantity fitted to the algorithm's outputs, so no fitted input is renamed as a prediction. References to the authors' prior work appear ([14], [20], [28], [40]), but the load-bearing modeling element cited to [28], the rotary-wing propulsion expression (18), is a standard, parameter-free model with stated physical constants that is widely used in the UAV literature and does not derive the paper's central result from a self-citation chain. The skeptical issue about Eq. (29), the unquantified higher-order phase-error terms and the undefined xi in (34), is an approximation-validity and completeness concern, not a circular one. Accordingly, the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. Its central claim rests on a Gaussian phase error model, a Taylor-style approximation of the exponential quadratic form, and standard Bernstein-type inequalities, plus a set of user-set weights, variances, and outage targets. The free parameters are inputs from the scenario, not fitted to make the result come out.

free parameters (3)
  • weighting factors eta1, eta2 = eta1=0.1, eta2=0.001 (Table I)
    User-set weights in the objective (21) that balance ground transmission, UAV computation and forwarding, and propulsion energy. They are chosen by hand for simulations and affect the energy trade-off, but are not fitted to measured data.
  • phase error variance rho^2 = standard deviation about 50/360 degrees in the simulation setup
    Input to the Gaussian phase uncertainty model in Eq. (24), assumed known from training or historical observation. The robust design and the meaning of the chance constraint depend on this value, yet it is not estimated or validated in the paper.
  • outage threshold epsilon_n = 0.2 default, with 0.01 also shown in Fig. 4(e)
    Design reliability requirement in chance constraint (25). It is chosen by the operator rather than derived, and it directly controls how conservative the Bernstein reformulation is.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption UAV-satellite phase errors are independent Gaussian with zero mean and identical variance across all antennas (Eq. 24).
    Justified by a central-limit argument over many error sources. This distribution is load-bearing because the Bernstein-type chance constraint conversion depends on Gaussianity.
  • ad hoc to paper The exact quadratic form exp^H(j theta) Z exp(j theta) is well approximated by the quadratic expression in Eq. (29).
    The paper provides no error bound or validity condition. The chance constraint (32) is built on this approximation, so its accuracy controls whether the outage guarantee is meaningful.
  • standard math Bernstein-type inequality from reference [42] gives a valid sufficient condition for the Gaussian quadratic chance constraints (33).
    External result accepted from the literature. The paper does not prove it but uses it as the main tool to convert probabilistic constraints into deterministic ones.
  • domain assumption UAV computation is prompt enough that computation time can be ignored (Sec. IV-A).
    The paper assumes data is fed into a pre-trained network and processed while receiving, so each slot is split only into offloading and forwarding phases. This removes a latency constraint that could be significant for real workloads.
  • domain assumption UAV-satellite distance is treated as constant and independent of UAV waypoints, with the free-space, rain, antenna gain, and phase model of Sec. III.
    Reasonable for a 600 km satellite distance, but it removes any dependence of the satellite link on the optimized trajectory except through phase uncertainty and the beamforming variable.
  • ad hoc to paper Rounding the relaxed scheduling variables chi_n,k to 0/1 preserves feasibility of the offloading constraints.
    The paper states that integral variables are restored by rounding but gives no recovery procedure or feasibility guarantee. Rounding can violate constraints (9) and (11) in principle.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Energy-Efficient Integrated Communication and Computation via Non-Terrestrial Networks with Uncertainty Awareness." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LN47RVVM

@misc{pith2026250601243,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Energy-Efficient Integrated Communication and Computation via Non-Terrestrial Networks with Uncertainty Awareness},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LN47RVVM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.01243}
}
read the original abstract

Non-terrestrial network (NTN)-based integrated communication and computation empowers various emerging applications with global coverage. Yet this vision is severely challenged by the energy issue given the limited energy supply of NTN nodes and the energy-consuming nature of communication and computation. In this paper, we investigate the energy-efficient integrated communication and computation for the ground node data through a NTN, incorporating an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) and a satellite. We jointly consider ground data offloading to the UAV, edge processing on the UAV, and the forwarding of results from UAV to satellite, where we particularly address the uncertainties of the UAV-satellite links due to the large distance and high dynamics therein. Accordingly, we propose to minimize the weighted energy consumption due to data offloading, UAV computation, UAV transmission, and UAV propulsion, in the presence of angular uncertainties under Gaussian distribution within the UAV-satellite channels. The formulated problem with probabilistic constraints due to uncertainties is converted into a deterministic form by exploiting the Bernstein-type inequality, which is then solved using a block coordinate descent framework with algorithm design. Simulation results are provided to demonstrate the performance superiority of our proposal in terms of energy sustainability, along with the robustness against uncertain non-terrestrial environments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.01243 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. System model. For the ground-air transmissions corresponding to the data offloading from the ground nodes to the UAV, the channel from node-k ∈ K to the UAV in time slot-n ∈ N is given as hn,k = β0 ∥qn − wk∥ 2 , ∀k ∈ K, ∀n ∈ N , (3) where β0 is the signal attenuation at the reference distance, and we assume there is one single antenna at both the ground nodes and the UAV. We use the channel gain at the trajectory wa… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Performance under different time lengths. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Performance under different data amounts and computation capabilities. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Performance comparison under different schemes. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

  1. [28]

    Energy-efficient data collec- tion for UA V-assisted IoT: Joint trajectory and resource optimization,

    X. Tang, W. Wang, H. He, and R. Zhang, “Energy-efficient data collec- tion for UA V-assisted IoT: Joint trajectory and resource optimization,” Chin. J. Aeronaut., vol. 39, no. 9, pp. 15–25, Sep. 2022

    work page 2022

  2. [1]

    On the road to 6G: Visions, requirements, key technologies, and testbeds,

    C.-X. Wang, X. You, X. Gao, X. Zhu, Z. Li, C. Zhang, H. Wang, Y . Huang, Y . Chen, H. Haas, J. S. Thompson, E. G. Larsson, M. D. Renzo, W. Tong, P. Zhu, X. Shen, H. V . Poor, and L. Hanzo, “On the road to 6G: Visions, requirements, key technologies, and testbeds,”IEEE Commun. Surveys & Tuts., vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 905–974, 2nd Quart. 2023

    work page 2023

  3. [2]

    Evolution of non-terrestrial networks from 5G to 6G: A survey,

    M. M. Azari, S. Solanki, S. Chatzinotas, O. Kodheli, H. Sallouha, A. Colpaert, J. F. Mendoza Montoya, S. Pollin, A. Haqiqatnejad, A. Mostaani, E. Lagunas, and B. Ottersten, “Evolution of non-terrestrial networks from 5G to 6G: A survey,”IEEE Commun. Surveys & Tuts., vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 2633–2672, 4th Quart. 2022

    work page 2022

  4. [3]

    Ubiquitous 6G service through non-terrestrial networks,

    J. Wigard, E. Juan, J. Stanczak, M. Lauridsen, A. Marcone, S. Hoppe, A. Ahmadzadeh, A. Masri, and D.-H. Tran, “Ubiquitous 6G service through non-terrestrial networks,”IEEE Wireless Commun., vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 12–18, Dec. 2023

    work page 2023

  5. [4]

    Future space networks: Toward the next giant leap for humankind,

    M. Y . Abdelsadek, A. U. Chaudhry, T. Darwish, E. Erdogan, G. Karabulut-Kurt, P. G. Madoery, O. Ben Yahia, and H. Yanikomeroglu, “Future space networks: Toward the next giant leap for humankind,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 71, no. 2, pp. 949–1007, Feb. 2023

    work page 2023

  6. [5]

    Multi-UA V cooperative task offloading and resource allocation in 5G advanced and beyond,

    H. Guo, Y . Wang, J. Liu, and C. Liu, “Multi-UA V cooperative task offloading and resource allocation in 5G advanced and beyond,”IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 347–359, 2024

    work page 2024

  7. [6]

    Integrated sensing, computation, and communication: System framework and performance optimization,

    Y . He, G. Yu, Y . Cai, and H. Luo, “Integrated sensing, computation, and communication: System framework and performance optimization,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 1114–1128, Feb. 2024

    2024

  8. [7]

    Energy efficient UA V-enabled mobile edge computing for IoT devices: A review,

    M. Abrar, U. Ajmal, Z. M. Almohaimeed, X. Gui, R. Akram, and R. Masroor, “Energy efficient UA V-enabled mobile edge computing for IoT devices: A review,”IEEE Access, vol. 9, pp. 127 779–127 798, 2021

    work page 2021

Show all 42 references
  1. [8]

    Battery-aware energy optimization for satellite edge computing,

    Q. Li, S. Wang, X. Ma, A. Zhou, Y . Wang, G. Huang, and X. Liu, “Battery-aware energy optimization for satellite edge computing,”IEEE Trans. Services Comput., vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 437–451, Mar. 2024

    2024

  2. [9]

    Improved grant-free access for URLLC via multi-tier-driven computing: Network-load learning, prediction, and resource allocation,

    Z. Zhao, Q. Du, and G. K. Karagiannidis, “Improved grant-free access for URLLC via multi-tier-driven computing: Network-load learning, prediction, and resource allocation,”IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 607–622, Mar. 2023

    2023

  3. [10]

    Energy efficient computation offloading in aerial edge networks with multi-agent cooperation,

    W. Liu, B. Li, W. Xie, Y . Dai, and Z. Fei, “Energy efficient computation offloading in aerial edge networks with multi-agent cooperation,”IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 22, no. 9, pp. 5725–5739, Sep. 2023

    2023

  4. [11]

    A PDDQNLP algorithm for energy efficient computation offloading in UA V-assisted MEC,

    N. Lin, H. Tang, L. Zhao, S. Wan, A. Hawbani, and M. Guizani, “A PDDQNLP algorithm for energy efficient computation offloading in UA V-assisted MEC,”IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 22, no. 12, pp. 8876–8890, Dec. 2023

    2023

  5. [12]

    Enabling resilient access equality for 6G LEO satellite swarm networks,

    S.-C. Lin, C.-H. Lin, L. C. Chu, and S.-Y . Lien, “Enabling resilient access equality for 6G LEO satellite swarm networks,”IEEE Internet Things Mag., vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 38–43, Sep. 2023

    2023

  6. [13]

    Energy-constrained computation offloading in space-air-ground integrated networks using distributionally robust optimization,

    Y . Chen, B. Ai, Y . Niu, H. Zhang, and Z. Han, “Energy-constrained computation offloading in space-air-ground integrated networks using distributionally robust optimization,”IEEE Trans. V eh. Technol., vol. 70, no. 11, pp. 12 113–12 125, Nov. 2021

    2021

  7. [14]

    Robust secrecy via aerial reflection and jamming: Joint optimization of deployment and transmission,

    X. Tang, H. He, L. Dong, L. Li, Q. Du, and Z. Han, “Robust secrecy via aerial reflection and jamming: Joint optimization of deployment and transmission,”IEEE Internet Things J., vol. 10, no. 14, pp. 12 562– 12 576, Jul. 2023

    2023

  8. [15]

    Multi-objective robust beamforming for integrated satellite and aerial networks supporting heterogeneous services,

    Z. Wang, M. Lin, J. Ouyang, J.-B. Wang, W.-P. Zhu, and N. Al- Dhahir, “Multi-objective robust beamforming for integrated satellite and aerial networks supporting heterogeneous services,”IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 22, no. 10, pp. 6870–6882, Oct. 2023

    2023

  9. [16]

    Autonomous non-terrestrial base station deployment for non-terrestrial networks: A reinforcement learning ap- proach,

    S.-Y . Lien and D.-J. Deng, “Autonomous non-terrestrial base station deployment for non-terrestrial networks: A reinforcement learning ap- proach,”IEEE Trans. V eh. Technol., vol. 71, no. 10, pp. 10 894–10 909, Oct. 2022

    2022

  10. [17]

    On the optimal deployment of virtual network functions in non-terrestrial segments,

    A. Petrosino, G. Piro, L. A. Grieco, and G. Boggia, “On the optimal deployment of virtual network functions in non-terrestrial segments,” IEEE Trans. Netw. Service Manag., vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 4831–4845, Dec. 2023

    2023

  11. [18]

    Enhancing satellite non-terrestrial networks through advanced constellation man- agement: Optimizing in-orbit resources for NB-IoT,

    A. Singla, A. Calveras, F. Betorz, and J. A. Ruiz-De-Azua, “Enhancing satellite non-terrestrial networks through advanced constellation man- agement: Optimizing in-orbit resources for NB-IoT,”IEEE Open J. Commun. Soc., vol. 5, pp. 2113–2131, 2024

    2024

  12. [19]

    Integrating LEO satellites and multi-UA V reinforcement learning for hybrid FSO/RF non-terrestrial networks,

    J.-H. Lee, J. Park, M. Bennis, and Y .-C. Ko, “Integrating LEO satellites and multi-UA V reinforcement learning for hybrid FSO/RF non-terrestrial networks,”IEEE Trans. V eh. Technol., vol. 72, no. 3, pp. 3647–3662, Mar. 2023

    2023

  13. [20]

    UA V-enabled aerial active RIS with learning deployment for secured wireless communica- tions,

    X. Tang, Z. Xiong, L. Dong, R. Zhang, and Q. Du, “UA V-enabled aerial active RIS with learning deployment for secured wireless communica- tions,”Chin. J. Aeronaut., 2024, early access

    2024

  14. [21]

    Trusted and efficient task offloading in vehicular edge computing networks,

    H. Guo, X. Chen, X. Zhou, and J. Liu, “Trusted and efficient task offloading in vehicular edge computing networks,”IEEE Trans. Cog. Commun. Netw., vol. 10, no. 6, pp. 2370–2382, 2024

    2024

  15. [22]

    Revolutionizing future connectivity: A contem- porary survey on AI-empowered satellite-based non-terrestrial networks in 6G,

    S. Mahboob and L. Liu, “Revolutionizing future connectivity: A contem- porary survey on AI-empowered satellite-based non-terrestrial networks in 6G,”IEEE Commun. Surveys & Tuts., 2024, early access

    2024

  16. [23]

    Joint optimization of server and service selection in satellite-terrestrial integrated edge computing networks,

    Y . Gao, Z. Yan, K. Zhao, T. de Cola, and W. Li, “Joint optimization of server and service selection in satellite-terrestrial integrated edge computing networks,”IEEE Trans. V eh. Technol., vol. 73, no. 2, pp. 2740–2754, Feb. 2024

    2024

  17. [24]

    An edge computing paradigm for massive IoT connectivity over high- altitude platform networks,

    M. Ke, Z. Gao, Y . Huang, G. Ding, D. W. K. Ng, Q. Wu, and J. Zhang, “An edge computing paradigm for massive IoT connectivity over high- altitude platform networks,”IEEE Wireless Commun., vol. 28, no. 5, pp. 102–109, Oct. 2021

    2021

  18. [25]

    Collaborative computing in non-terrestrial networks: A multi-time-scale deep rein- forcement learning approach,

    Y . Cao, S.-Y . Lien, Y .-C. Liang, D. Niyato, and X. Shen, “Collaborative computing in non-terrestrial networks: A multi-time-scale deep rein- forcement learning approach,”IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 4932–4949, May 2024. 13 0 200 400 600 800 1000 x (m) 0...

    2024

  19. [26]

    Multi-user task offloading in UA V-assisted LEO satellite edge computing: A game- theoretic approach,

    Y . Chen, J. Zhao, Y . Wu, J. Huang, and X. S. Shen, “Multi-user task offloading in UA V-assisted LEO satellite edge computing: A game- theoretic approach,”IEEE Trans. Mob. Comput., vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 363–378, 2025

    2025

  20. [27]

    Intelligent task offloading and resource allocation in digital twin based aerial computing networks,

    H. Guo, X. Zhou, J. Wang, J. Liu, and A. Benslimane, “Intelligent task offloading and resource allocation in digital twin based aerial computing networks,”IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 41, no. 10, pp. 3095–3110, 2023

    2023

  21. [29]

    Completion time and energy optimization in the UA V-enabled mobile-edge computing system,

    C. Zhan, H. Hu, X. Sui, Z. Liu, and D. Niyato, “Completion time and energy optimization in the UA V-enabled mobile-edge computing system,”IEEE Internet Things J., vol. 7, no. 8, pp. 7808–7822, Aug. 2020

    2020

  22. [30]

    Dynamic offloading and trajectory control for UA V-enabled mobile edge computing system with energy harvesting devices,

    Z. Yang, S. Bi, and Y .-J. A. Zhang, “Dynamic offloading and trajectory control for UA V-enabled mobile edge computing system with energy harvesting devices,”IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 21, no. 12, pp. 10 515–10 528, Dec. 2022

    2022

  23. [31]

    Joint optimization of resource allocation, phase shift, and UA V trajectory for energy- efficient RIS-assisted UA V-enabled MEC systems,

    X. Qin, Z. Song, T. Hou, W. Yu, J. Wang, and X. Sun, “Joint optimization of resource allocation, phase shift, and UA V trajectory for energy- efficient RIS-assisted UA V-enabled MEC systems,”IEEE Trans. Green Commun. Netw., vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 1778–1792, Dec. 2023

    2023

  24. [32]

    Energy-stabilized computing offloading algorithm for UA Vs with energy harvesting,

    K. Zeng, X. Li, and T. Shen, “Energy-stabilized computing offloading algorithm for UA Vs with energy harvesting,”IEEE Internet Things J., vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 6020–6031, Feb. 2024

    2024

  25. [33]

    Energy-efficient design of satellite- terrestrial computing in 6G wireless networks,

    Q. Wang, X. Chen, and Q. Qi, “Energy-efficient design of satellite- terrestrial computing in 6G wireless networks,”IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 72, no. 3, pp. 1759–1772, Mar. 2024

    2024

  26. [34]

    Energy-efficient computation peer offloading in satellite edge computing networks,

    X. Zhang, J. Liu, R. Zhang, Y . Huang, J. Tong, N. Xin, L. Liu, and Z. Xiong, “Energy-efficient computation peer offloading in satellite edge computing networks,”IEEE Trans. Mobile Comput., vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 3077–3091, Apr. 2024

    2024

  27. [35]

    Aerial edge computing on orbit: A task offloading and allocation scheme,

    Y . Zhang, C. Chen, L. Liu, D. Lan, H. Jiang, and S. Wan, “Aerial edge computing on orbit: A task offloading and allocation scheme,”IEEE Trans. Netw. Sci. Eng., vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 275–285, Jan. 2023

    2023

  28. [36]

    Outage- constrained robust multigroup multicast beamforming for satellite-based Internet of Things coexisting with terrestrial networks,

    Y . Yan, K. An, B. Zhang, W.-P. Zhu, G. Ding, and D. Guo, “Outage- constrained robust multigroup multicast beamforming for satellite-based Internet of Things coexisting with terrestrial networks,”IEEE Internet Things J., vol. 8, no. 10, pp. 8159–8172, May 2021

    2021

  29. [37]

    Data offloading in UA V-assisted multi-access edge computing systems under resource uncertainty,

    P. A. Apostolopoulos, G. Fragkos, E. E. Tsiropoulou, and S. Papavas- siliou, “Data offloading in UA V-assisted multi-access edge computing systems under resource uncertainty,”IEEE Trans. Mobile Comput., vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 175–190, Jan. 2023

    2023

  30. [38]

    Robust com- putation offloading and trajectory optimization for multi-UA V-assisted MEC: A multiagent DRL approach,

    B. Li, R. Yang, L. Liu, J. Wang, N. Zhang, and M. Dong, “Robust com- putation offloading and trajectory optimization for multi-UA V-assisted MEC: A multiagent DRL approach,”IEEE Internet Things J., vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 4775–4786, Feb. 2024

    2024

  31. [39]

    Energy consumption minimization in secure multi-antenna UA V-assisted MEC networks with channel uncertainty,

    W. Mao, K. Xiong, Y . Lu, P. Fan, and Z. Ding, “Energy consumption minimization in secure multi-antenna UA V-assisted MEC networks with channel uncertainty,”IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 22, no. 11, pp. 7185–7200, Nov. 2023

    2023

  32. [40]

    Robust trajectory and offloading for energy-efficient UA V edge computing in industrial Internet of Things,

    X. Tang, H. Zhang, R. Zhang, D. Zhou, Y . Zhang, and Z. Han, “Robust trajectory and offloading for energy-efficient UA V edge computing in industrial Internet of Things,”IEEE Trans. Ind Informat., vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 38–49, Jan. 2024

    2024

  33. [41]

    A robust design for MISO physical-layer multicasting over line-of-sight channels,

    M.-C. Yue, S. X. Wu, and A. M.-C. So, “A robust design for MISO physical-layer multicasting over line-of-sight channels,”IEEE Signal Process. Letts., vol. 23, no. 7, pp. 939–943, Jul. 2016

    2016

  34. [42]

    Outage constrained robust transmit optimization for multiuser MISO downlinks: Tractable approximations by conic optimization,

    K.-Y . Wang, A. M.-C. So, T.-H. Chang, W.-K. Ma, and C.-Y . Chi, “Outage constrained robust transmit optimization for multiuser MISO downlinks: Tractable approximations by conic optimization,”IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 62, no. 21, pp. 5690–5705, Nov. 2014

    2014

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.