Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 2 minor 61 references

Joint link scheduling and power allocation in imperfect and energy-constrained underwater wireless sensor networks

T0 review · 4 major / 2 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that a deep multi-agent reinforcement-learning scheme, ICRL-JSA, can jointly schedule links and allocate power in underwater wireless sensor networks to deliver fair, efficient, and reliable communication even when energy

desk verdict A plausible MARL extension for underwater scheduling whose central claim rests on an abstract that gives no numbers, so peer review should hinge on the full simulation details, not this abstract. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.07679 v1 pith:E33XEIG6 submitted 2025-08-11 cs.NI

Tong Zhang , Yu Gou , Jun Liu , Shanshan Song , Tingting Yang , Jun-Hong Cui This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.NI
keywords underwaterwirelesssensornetworksmulti-agentreinforcementlearninglinkschedulingpowerallocationenergy-constrainednodefailuresdeepQ-network
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

The paper aims to establish that a deep multi-agent reinforcement-learning scheme, ICRL-JSA, can provide fair, efficient, and reliable communication in underwater wireless sensor networks even when energy is scarce and nodes fail unexpectedly. It formulates this goal as an optimization problem, FERCOP, and argues that conventional reinforcement learning cannot handle the underwater acoustic environment, whereas ICRL-JSA—built by combining deep Q-network with an advanced training mechanism—learns joint link-scheduling and power-allocation policies automatically. If the simulation results hold, network designers would no longer need to hand-code schedules for each deployment; the network itself would learn to adapt to acoustic channels, battery limits, and malfunctions. That matters because limited energy and unexpected node failures are exactly the constraints that most limit real underwater sensing systems.

What carries the argument

The central object is ICRL-JSA, the paper's named optimizer: a deep multi-agent reinforcement-learning approach constructed by integrating deep Q-network into imperfect and energy-constrained underwater wireless sensor networks. The joint action space combines link scheduling and power allocation, and the objective is FERCOP, the fair-efficient-reliable communication optimization problem. The load-bearing component is the advanced training mechanism, which is what makes deep Q-network tractable under complex acoustic channels, limited energy supplies, and unexpected node malfunctions.

What would settle it

A head-to-head replay experiment: feed ICRL-JSA and a benchmark the same recorded acoustic channel measurements, the same battery-drain model calibrated to a real modem, and the same random node-failure process. If ICRL-JSA's fairness, efficiency, and reliability gains over the benchmark disappear or reverse, the paper's central claim is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper claims that joint link scheduling and power allocation can be solved by a deep multi-agent Q-network trained specifically for imperfect, energy-constrained underwater networks, and that the learned solution outperforms benchmark algorithms in simulation. The phrase 'imperfect and energy-constrained' captures the two obstacles the method is built to survive: limited energy supplies and unexpected node malfunctions. The paper states that conventional RL methods cannot address these underwater challenges, while ICRL-JSA, with its advanced training mechanism, can automatically learn scheduling algorithms without human intervention and deliver fair, efficient, and reli

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the simulated underwater acoustic channel, energy consumption, and node-failure models reflect real deployments closely enough that superior simulation performance carries over to practice.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If correct, underwater networks can learn joint link-scheduling and power-allocation policies automatically, removing the need for human-designed schedules.
  • If correct, jointly optimizing scheduling and power outperforms treating them separately, improving fairness, efficiency, and reliability under energy constraints and node failures.
  • If correct, the advanced training mechanism makes deep Q-network viable in a setting—complex acoustic channels with limited energy and unexpected malfunctions—where conventional RL fails.
  • If correct, the learned policies retain their advantage under imperfect channel conditions rather than only under idealized assumptions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • I infer that the same model-free optimizer could be carried to neighboring resource-allocation decisions—routing, duty cycling, or adaptive modulation—without redesign, because the learning loop is not tied to the specific scheduling action space.
  • I infer that the decisive ingredient is likely the advanced training mechanism, not the DQN backbone; ablating it, for example by turning off its failure-handling or energy-awareness components, would reveal which part produces the reported gains.
  • I infer that transfer to real deployments hinges on the fidelity of the simulators' acoustic-channel and battery models; replaying measured channel traces through the training loop would be a sharper validation than the reported benchmarks.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript as provided for review consists only of an abstract, with no main text, equations, simulation setup, or numerical results. The abstract states that the authors formulate a fair, efficient, and reliable (FER) communication optimization problem (FERCOP) for imperfect and energy-constrained underwater wireless sensor networks (IC-UWSNs), and propose ICRL-JSA, a deep multi-agent reinforcement learning (MARL) method that jointly performs link scheduling and power allocation. It further claims that an advanced training mechanism enables ICRL-JSA to cope with complex acoustic channels, limited energy supplies, and unexpected node malfunctions, and that simulation results demonstrate superiority over various benchmark algorithms. Because the full text is absent, the technical content and evidence behind these claims cannot be reviewed.

Significance. If the claimed results are valid, the work addresses a relevant and challenging problem in underwater wireless sensor networks: joint resource allocation under energy constraints, imperfect channel conditions, and node failures. The combination of link scheduling and power allocation in a MARL framework is a plausible contribution. However, the significance cannot be assessed on the basis of the submitted material alone. The paper offers no verifiable derivations, no reproducible code, no machine-checked proofs, and no quantitative simulation results; the only evidence is contained in an abstract-level assertion. The central claims are currently unsupported rather than disproved.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract] The central claim, 'Simulation results demonstrate the superiority of the proposed ICRL-JSA scheme... compared to various benchmark algorithms,' is not substantiated by any numerical results, performance metrics, error bars, or statistical significance tests. This is a load-bearing point because the entire contribution rests on an empirical comparison. Without the underlying tables or figures, the reader cannot verify superiority, fairness of the comparison, or even the existence of the simulations.
  2. [Abstract] The problem formulation FERCOP is mentioned but no mathematical definition is given. 'Fair,' 'efficient,' and 'reliable' are not formally specified, and it is unclear how they are quantified in an objective or constraint set. This prevents the reader from judging whether ICRL-JSA actually solves the stated problem or whether the proposed algorithm is appropriate for the objective.
  3. [Abstract] The term 'imperfect and energy-constrained UWSNs' is ambiguous. 'Imperfect' could refer to imperfect channel state information, random packet losses, hardware faults, or other impairments. The abstract asserts the training mechanism handles 'complex acoustic channels, limited energy supplies, and unexpected node malfunctions,' but provides no channel model, energy model, or failure model. Since deep MARL results are highly sensitive to environment modeling and non-stationarity, the lack of these details makes the claimed generality of the 'advanced training mechanism' unverifiable.
  4. [Abstract] The 'advanced training mechanism' is not described. It is not possible to determine whether the proposed method addresses genuine MDP non-stationarity or whether its performance, if any, comes from reward shaping, exploration schedules, or hyperparameter tuning. The comparison to 'various benchmark algorithms' is also unspecified; the reader cannot tell whether the baselines are current, properly tuned, or evaluated under identical conditions. This bears directly on the credibility of the claimed superiority.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract should name at least the key benchmark algorithms used for comparison, so a reader can gauge the strength of the claimed improvement.
  2. [Abstract] The phrase 'imperfect IC-UWSNs' is redundant; 'IC' already stands for 'imperfect and energy-constrained.' Consider simplifying terminology.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity evident; simulation evidence is incomplete but not circular.

full rationale

The supplied manuscript text consists only of the abstract, which contains no derivation chain, no equations, no fitted parameters later relabeled as predictions, and no load-bearing self-citations. The central claim is that the proposed ICRL-JSA scheme outperforms benchmark algorithms in simulation; however, simulation-based evidence, even if incompletely specified, is not circular unless the benchmarks or simulation environment are constructed from the method's own outputs. No such reduction can be exhibited from the text provided. Under the hard rules, concerns about realism of the channel, energy, and failure models or about benchmark tuning are correctness and evidence concerns, not circularity. Therefore an honest non-finding is appropriate: score 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The abstract only reveals the problem setting; all listed assumptions are standard modeling choices for underwater network simulation, but without the full text we cannot verify whether they are justified or calibrated to real data.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Underwater acoustic channels can be accurately modeled in simulation (e.g., path loss, noise, multipath).
    The abstract claims the training mechanism handles complex acoustic channels; this presumes a valid channel model.
  • domain assumption Node malfunctions are represented by a known stochastic model.
    The abstract refers to unexpected node malfunctions; the algorithm's performance relies on the simulated failure process matching reality.
  • domain assumption Energy consumption and battery dynamics are correctly captured.
    The abstract highlights limited energy supply; the power allocation strategy depends on accurate energy accounting.
  • standard math Deep Q-network training converges to a policy that generalizes to unseen network states.
    The approach relies on standard RL convergence/generalization assumptions, which are not guaranteed in non-stationary underwater environments.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Joint link scheduling and power allocation in imperfect and energy-constrained underwater wireless sensor networks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/E33XEIG6

@misc{pith2026250807679,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Joint link scheduling and power allocation in imperfect and energy-constrained underwater wireless sensor networks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/E33XEIG6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.07679}
}
read the original abstract

Underwater wireless sensor networks (UWSNs) stand as promising technologies facilitating diverse underwater applications. However, the major design issues of the considered system are the severely limited energy supply and unexpected node malfunctions. This paper aims to provide fair, efficient, and reliable (FER) communication to the imperfect and energy-constrained UWSNs (IC-UWSNs). Therefore, we formulate a FER-communication optimization problem (FERCOP) and propose ICRL-JSA to solve the formulated problem. ICRL-JSA is a deep multi-agent reinforcement learning (MARL)-based optimizer for IC-UWSNs through joint link scheduling and power allocation, which automatically learns scheduling algorithms without human intervention. However, conventional RL methods are unable to address the challenges posed by underwater environments and IC-UWSNs. To construct ICRL-JSA, we integrate deep Q-network into IC-UWSNs and propose an advanced training mechanism to deal with complex acoustic channels, limited energy supplies, and unexpected node malfunctions. Simulation results demonstrate the superiority of the proposed ICRL-JSA scheme with an advanced training mechanism compared to various benchmark algorithms.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 61 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    11em plus .33em minus .07em 4000 4000 100 4000 4000 500 `\.=1000 = #1 \@IEEEnotcompsoconly \@IEEEcompsoconly #1 * [1] 0pt [0pt][0pt] #1 * [1] 0pt [0pt][0pt] #1 * \| ** #1 \@IEEEauthorblockNstyle \@IEEEcompsocnotconfonly \@IEEEauthorblockAstyle \@IEEEcompsocnotconfonly \@IEEEcompsocconfonly \@IEEEauthordefaulttextstyle \@IEEEcompsocnotconfonly \@IEEEauthor...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Satake, ``Advances in earthquake and tsunami sciences and disaster risk reduction since the 2004 indian ocean tsunami,'' Geoscience Letters, vol

    K. Satake, ``Advances in earthquake and tsunami sciences and disaster risk reduction since the 2004 indian ocean tsunami,'' Geoscience Letters, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1--13, 2014

    work page 2004

  3. [3]

    M. Y. Aalsalem, W. Z. Khan, W. Gharibi, M. K. Khan, and Q. Arshad, ``Wireless sensor networks in oil and gas industry: Recent advances, taxonomy, requirements, and open challenges,'' Journal of network and computer applications, vol. 113, pp. 87--97, 2018

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    Xu and T

    L. Xu and T. Xu, Digital Underwater Acoustic Communications. 1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4em Academic Press, 2016

    work page 2016

  5. [5]

    Stojanovic and J

    M. Stojanovic and J. Preisig, ``Underwater acoustic communication channels: Propagation models and statistical characterization,'' IEEE communications magazine, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 84--89, 2009

    work page 2009

  6. [6]

    Y. Gou, T. Zhang, T. Yang, J. Liu, S. Song, and J.-H. Cui, ``A deep marl-based power-management strategy for improving the fair reuse of uwsns,'' IEEE Internet of Things Journal, vol. 10, no. 7, pp. 6507--6522, 2023

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Gupta and P

    P. Gupta and P. R. Kumar, ``The capacity of wireless networks,'' IEEE Transactions on information theory, vol. 46, no. 2, p. 22, 2000

    work page 2000

  8. [8]

    Sathiaseelan and G

    A. Sathiaseelan and G. Fairhurst, ``Multimedia congestion control for broadband wireless networks,'' in 2007 16th IST Mobile and Wireless Communications Summit. 1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4em IEEE, 2007, pp. 1--5

    work page 2007

Show all 61 references
  1. [9]

    Diamant, P

    R. Diamant, P. Casari, F. Campagnaro, and M. Zorzi, ``Leveraging the near--far effect for improved spatial-reuse scheduling in underwater acoustic networks,'' IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 1480--1493, 2016

    2016

  2. [10]

    Y. Gou, T. Zhang, J. Liu, T. Yang, S. Song, and J.-H. Cui, ``Achieving time-sharing and spatial-reuse underwater wireless sensor networks with communication fairness: A distributed deep multi-agent reinforcement learning approach,'' in The 15th International Conference on Unde...

    2021

  3. [11]

    Zhang, Y

    T. Zhang, Y. Gou, J. Liu, T. Yang, and J.-H. Cui, ``Udarmf: An underwater distributed and adaptive resource management framework,'' IEEE Internet of Things Journal, vol. 9, no. 10, pp. 7196--7210, 2022

    2022

  4. [12]

    ElBatt and A

    T. ElBatt and A. Ephremides, ``Joint scheduling and power control for wireless ad hoc networks,'' IEEE Transactions on Wireless communications, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 74--85, 2004

    2004

  5. [13]

    X. Cao, R. Ma, L. Liu, H. Shi, Y. Cheng, and C. Sun, ``A machine learning-based algorithm for joint scheduling and power control in wireless networks,'' IEEE Internet of Things Journal, vol. 5, no. 6, pp. 4308--4318, 2018

    2018

  6. [14]

    T. Park, N. Abuzainab, and W. Saad, ``Learning how to communicate in the internet of things: Finite resources and heterogeneity,'' IEEE Access, vol. 4, pp. 7063--7073, 2016

    2016

  7. [15]

    Naderializadeh, J

    N. Naderializadeh, J. J. Sydir, M. Simsek, and H. Nikopour, ``Resource management in wireless networks via multi-agent deep reinforcement learning,'' IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 20, no. 6, pp. 3507--3523, 2021

    2021

  8. [16]

    Gorma and P

    W. Gorma and P. D. Mitchell, ``An adaptive tdma-based mac protocol for underwater acoustic sensor networks,'' in Proceedings of the International Conference on Underwater Networks & Systems, 2019, pp. 1--8

    2019

  9. [17]

    Y. Wang, C. Zhan, X. Song, and L. Lei, ``A concurrent mac protocol with master-slave transmission for multi-hop underwater acoustic sensor networks,'' in 2021 IEEE 6th International Conference on Signal and Image Processing (ICSIP). 1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4em IEEE, 2021, pp. 1...

    2021

  10. [18]

    Z. Fan, L. Wang, B. Lu, Y. Yu, C. Lin, Z. Luo, Z. Qin, and M. Zhu, ``A link scheduling algorithm for underwater optical wireless networks,'' in 2020 IFIP Networking Conference (Networking). 1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4em IEEE, 2020, pp. 827--832

    2020

  11. [19]

    Zhang, X

    W. Zhang, X. Wang, G. Han, Y. Peng, M. Guizani, and J. Sun, ``A load-adaptive fair access protocol for mac in underwater acoustic sensor networks,'' Journal of Network and Computer Applications, vol. 173, p. 102867, 2021

    2021

  12. [20]

    K. Y. Islam, I. Ahmad, D. Habibi, and A. Waqar, ``A survey on energy efficiency in underwater wireless communications,'' Journal of Network and Computer Applications, vol. 198, p. 103295, 2022

    2022

  13. [21]

    Z. Sun, G. Sun, Y. Liu, J. Wang, and D. Cao, ``Bargain-match: A game theoretical approach for resource allocation and task offloading in vehicular edge computing networks,'' IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 1655--1673, 2024

    2024

  14. [22]

    J. M. Jornet, M. Stojanovic, and M. Zorzi, ``On joint frequency and power allocation in a cross-layer protocol for underwater acoustic networks,'' IEEE Journal of Oceanic engineering, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 936--947, 2010

    2010

  15. [23]

    W. Yu, Y. Chen, Y. Tang, and X. Xu, ``Power allocation for underwater source nodes in uwa cooperative networks,'' in 2018 IEEE international conference on signal processing, communications and computing (ICSPCC). 1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4em IEEE, 2018, pp. 1--6

    2018

  16. [24]

    Zhang, Y

    T. Zhang, Y. Gou, J. Liu, T. Yang, S. Song, and J.-H. Cui, ``A scalable and fair power allocation scheme based on deep multi-agent reinforcement learning in underwater wireless sensor networks,'' in The 15th International Conference on Underwater Networks & Systems, 2021, pp. 1--5

    2021

  17. [25]

    R. L. Cruz and A. V. Santhanam, ``Optimal routing, link scheduling and power control in multihop wireless networks,'' in IEEE INFOCOM 2003. Twenty-second Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies (IEEE Cat. No. 03CH37428), vol. 1. 1em plus 0.5em...

    2003

  18. [26]

    Le and D.-S

    A.-M. Le and D.-S. Kim, ``Joint channel and power allocation for underwater cognitive acoustic networks,'' in 2014 International Conference on Advanced Technologies for Communications (ATC 2014). 1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4em IEEE, 2014, pp. 745--749

    2014

  19. [27]

    C. Wang, W. Zhao, Z. Bi, and Y. Wan, ``A joint power allocation and scheduling algorithm based on quasi-interference alignment in underwater acoustic networks,'' in OCEANS 2022-Chennai. 1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4em IEEE, 2022, pp. 1--6

    2022

  20. [28]

    Y. Gou, T. Zhang, J. Liu, T. Yang, S. Song, and J.-H. Cui, ``Achieving fair-effective communications and robustness in underwater acoustic sensor networks: A semi-cooperative approach,'' IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, 2023

    2023

  21. [29]

    V. Mnih, K. Kavukcuoglu, D. Silver, A. A. Rusu, J. Veness, M. G. Bellemare, A. Graves, M. Riedmiller, A. K. Fidjeland, G. Ostrovski et al., ``Human-level control through deep reinforcement learning,'' nature, vol. 518, no. 7540, pp. 529--533, 2015

    2015

  22. [30]

    V. D. Valerio, C. Petrioli, L. Pescosolido, and M. Van Der Shaar, ``A reinforcement learning-based data-link protocol for underwater acoustic communications,'' in Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Underwater Networks & Systems, 2015, pp. 1--5

    2015

  23. [31]

    H. Wang, Y. Li, and J. Qian, ``Self-adaptive resource allocation in underwater acoustic interference channel: A reinforcement learning approach,'' IEEE Internet of Things Journal, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 2816--2827, 2019

    2019

  24. [32]

    Y. He, G. Han, J. Jiang, H. Wang, and M. Martinez-Garcia, ``A trust update mechanism based on reinforcement learning in underwater acoustic sensor networks,'' IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 811--821, 2022

    2022

  25. [33]

    R. J. Urick, ``Principles of underwater sound 3rd edition,'' Peninsula Publising Los Atlos, California, vol. 22, pp. 23--24, 1983

    1983

  26. [34]

    Morozs, W

    N. Morozs, W. Gorma, B. T. Henson, L. Shen, P. D. Mitchell, and Y. V. Zakharov, ``Channel modeling for underwater acoustic network simulation,'' IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 136\,151--136\,175, 2020

    2020

  27. [35]

    Stojanovic, ``On the relationship between capacity and distance in an underwater acoustic communication channel,'' ACM SIGMOBILE Mobile Computing and Communications Review, vol

    M. Stojanovic, ``On the relationship between capacity and distance in an underwater acoustic communication channel,'' ACM SIGMOBILE Mobile Computing and Communications Review, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 34--43, 2007

    2007

  28. [36]

    P. C. Etter, Underwater acoustic modeling and simulation. 1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4em CRC press, 2018

    2018

  29. [37]

    M. R. Dhanak and N. I. Xiros, Springer handbook of ocean engineering. 1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4em Springer, 2016

    2016

  30. [38]

    Pompili, T

    D. Pompili, T. Melodia, and I. F. Akyildiz, ``A cdma-based medium access control for underwater acoustic sensor networks,'' IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 1899--1909, 2009

    1909

  31. [39]

    Song and P.-Y

    Y. Song and P.-Y. Kong, ``Optimizing design and performance of underwater acoustic sensor networks with 3d topology,'' IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, vol. 19, no. 7, pp. 1689--1701, 2019

    2019

  32. [40]

    Y. Zhu, Z. Peng, J.-H. Cui, and H. Chen, ``Toward practical mac design for underwater acoustic networks,'' IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 872--886, 2014

    2014

  33. [41]

    J. Zhao, Y. Zhao, W. Wang, M. Yang, X. Hu, W. Zhou, J. Hao, and H. Li, ``Coach-assisted multi-agent reinforcement learning framework for unexpected crashed agents,'' Frontiers of Information Technology & Electronic Engineering, vol. 23, no. 7, pp. 1032--1042, 2022

    2022

  34. [42]

    L. Wei, Z. Wang, J. Liu, Z. Peng, and J.-H. Cui, ``Power efficient deployment planning for wireless oceanographic systems,'' IEEE Systems Journal, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 516--526, 2016

    2016

  35. [43]

    K. Y. Islam, I. Ahmad, D. Habibi, J. Jin, and M. Waqas, ``Lifetime maximization in underwater wireless communication networks,'' IEEE Sensors Journal, vol. 22, no. 15, pp. 15\,549--15\,560, 2022

    2022

  36. [44]

    Stamatiou, P

    K. Stamatiou, P. Casari, and M. Zorzi, ``Throughput and transmission capacity of underwater networks with randomly distributed nodes,'' in 2011 IEEE Global Telecommunications Conference-GLOBECOM 2011. 1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4em IEEE, 2011, pp. 1--5

    2011

  37. [45]

    Freitag, M

    L. Freitag, M. Grund, S. Singh, J. Partan, P. Koski, and K. Ball, ``The whoi micro-modem: An acoustic communications and navigation system for multiple platforms,'' in Proceedings of OCEANS 2005 MTS/IEEE. 1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4em IEEE, 2005, pp. 1086--1092

    2005

  38. [46]

    Diamant, P

    R. Diamant, P. Casari, F. Campagnaro, O. Kebkal, V. Kebkal, and M. Zorzi, ``Fair and throughput-optimal routing in multimodal underwater networks,'' IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 1738--1754, 2018

    2018

  39. [47]

    Diamant, G

    R. Diamant, G. N. Shirazi, and L. Lampe, ``Robust spatial reuse scheduling in underwater acoustic communication networks,'' IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 32--46, 2013

    2013

  40. [48]

    Jain, The art of computer systems performance analysis

    R. Jain, The art of computer systems performance analysis. 1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4em john wiley & sons, 2008

    2008

  41. [49]

    Foerster, G

    J. Foerster, G. Farquhar, T. Afouras, N. Nardelli, and S. Whiteson, ``Counterfactual multi-agent policy gradients,'' in Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, vol. 32, no. 1, 2018

    2018

  42. [50]

    Casari, F

    P. Casari, F. Campagnaro, E. Dubrovinskaya, R. Francescon, A. Dagan, S. Dahan, M. Zorzi, and R. Diamant, ``Asuna: A topology data set for underwater network emulation,'' IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering, vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 307--318, 2020

    2020

  43. [51]

    Hausknecht and P

    M. Hausknecht and P. Stone, ``Deep recurrent q-learning for partially observable mdps,'' in 2015 aaai fall symposium series, 2015

    2015

  44. [52]

    J. Liu, T. Zhang, G. Han, and Y. Gou, ``Td-lstm: Temporal dependence-based lstm networks for marine temperature prediction,'' Sensors, vol. 18, no. 11, p. 3797, 2018

    2018

  45. [53]

    Z. Xia, J. Du, J. Wang, C. Jiang, Y. Ren, G. Li, and Z. Han, ``Multi-agent reinforcement learning aided intelligent uav swarm for target tracking,'' IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 71, no. 1, pp. 931--945, 2021

    2021

  46. [54]

    Sunehag, G

    P. Sunehag, G. Lever, A. Gruslys, W. M. Czarnecki, V. F. Zambaldi, M. Jaderberg, M. Lanctot, N. Sonnerat, J. Z. Leibo, K. Tuyls et al., ``Value-decomposition networks for cooperative multi-agent learning based on team reward,'' in AAMAS, 2018

    2018

  47. [55]

    N. Zhao, N. Yao, Z. Gao, and Z. Lu, ``Deep reinforcement learning based time-domain interference alignment scheduling for underwater acoustic networks,'' Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, vol. 10, no. 7, p. 903, 2022

    2022

  48. [56]

    Y. Ye, Y. Tang, H. Wang, X.-P. Zhang, and G. Strbac, ``A scalable privacy-preserving multi-agent deep reinforcement learning approach for large-scale peer-to-peer transactive energy trading,'' IEEE transactions on smart grid, vol. 12, no. 6, pp. 5185--5200, 2021

    2021

  49. [57]

    X. Li, X. Hu, R. Zhang, and L. Yang, ``Routing protocol design for underwater optical wireless sensor networks: A multiagent reinforcement learning approach,'' IEEE Internet of Things Journal, vol. 7, no. 10, pp. 9805--9818, 2020

    2020

  50. [58]

    Hu and Y

    T. Hu and Y. Fei, ``Qelar: A machine-learning-based adaptive routing protocol for energy-efficient and lifetime-extended underwater sensor networks,'' IEEE transactions on mobile computing, vol. 9, no. 6, pp. 796--809, 2010

    2010

  51. [59]

    W. Zhao, J. P. Queralta, and T. Westerlund, ``Sim-to-real transfer in deep reinforcement learning for robotics: a survey,'' in 2020 IEEE symposium series on computational intelligence (SSCI). 1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4em IEEE, 2020, pp. 737--744

    2020

  52. [60]

    M. Chitre. (2018) Arl python tools. [Online]. Available: https://pypi.org/project/arlpy/

    2018

  53. [61]

    H.-W. Lee, E. Modiano, and L. B. Le, ``Distributed throughput maximization in wireless networks via random power allocation,'' IEEE transactions on mobile computing, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 577--590, 2011

    2011

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.