Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 61 references

Hierarchical Online Optimization Approach for IRS-enabled Low-altitude MEC in Vehicular Networks

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Jointly optimizing offloading, UAV trajectory, IRS phases, and resource allocation in an IRS-enabled low-altitude MEC system can be solved online via a Stackelberg decomposition, cutting simulated task delay by 2.5% and energy by 3.1%.

desk verdict The hybrid-IRS architecture and the KKT closed-form are solid; the headline gains are plausible but under-supported by a closed simulator with unreported weights and no variance. read the letter →

arxiv 2512.24659 v2 pith:W77AUKHB submitted 2025-12-31 cs.NI

Yixian Wang , Geng Sun , Zemin Sun , Daxin Tian , Shiwen Mao This is my paper
classification cs.NI
keywords intelligentreflectingsurfacelow-altitudeMECvehicularnetworksunmannedaerialvehicletaskoffloadingdeepreinforcementlearningStackelberggamemulti-objectiveoptimization
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 proposes an architecture where an aerial MEC server on a UAV and a terrestrial MEC server at a base station jointly serve vehicles, while building-mounted and UAV-carried IRSs reflect signals around urban blockages. It formulates a multi-objective optimization problem that minimizes task completion delay and energy consumption over task offloading, UAV trajectory, IRS phase shifts, and computation resource allocation, and observes that the problem is a non-convex mixed-integer NP-hard program. To solve it online, the authors recast it as a Stackelberg game with MEC servers as leader and vehicles as followers. The follower level uses a many-to-one matching mechanism to produce feasible offloading decisions; the leader level uses a generative-diffusion-enhanced deep reinforcement learning algorithm for trajectory and IRS control, plus a KKT-based closed-form allocation of computation resources. Simulation results report a 2.5% lower average task completion delay and a 3.1% lower average energy consumption against the best benchmarks, with faster and more stable training than standard DRL baselines.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the Stackelberg-game decomposition of the original centralized MOOP into a leader problem (MEC servers) and a follower problem (vehicles). At the follower level, a many-to-one matching mechanism turns the discrete offloading decisions into stable, capacity-respecting associations between tasks and servers. At the leader level, the GDMTD3 algorithm—a deep reinforcement learning policy whose actor is a generative diffusion model that iteratively denoises continuous actions—produces UAV trajectory and IRS phase-shift decisions; a KKT-based closed-form solution resolves the computation-resource allocation exactly, removing those variables from the learned action spa

What would settle it

In a field test or a channel-accurate simulator, run the learned IRS phase-shift policy and then randomly permute the phase shifts while keeping the UAV trajectory and offloading decisions identical; if delay and energy do not measurably worsen, the IRS contribution is overstated. Alternatively, add a realistic phase-configuration overhead to the delay and energy objective—if that overhead exceeds the reported 2.5% and 3.1% margins, the claimed improvement disappears.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the joint optimization of task offloading, UAV trajectory, IRS phase-shift configuration, and computation resource allocation—a mixed-integer non-linear program—can be solved online by exploiting the natural leader-follower hierarchy between the MEC servers and vehicles. The hierarchy is formalized as a Stackelberg game, and the authors show that the discrete offloading decisions can be generated by a matching mechanism, while the continuous trajectory and IRS decisions can be learned by a diffusion-enhanced actor-critic policy, with computation allocation computed in closed form from KKT conditions. The paper asserts this decomposition produces significant improvem

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion stands or falls on whether the simulated radio channels and the IRS's ability to steer signals accurately and without overhead match what happens in real cities.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the reported gains hold, joint coordination of an aerial and a terrestrial MEC server with hybrid IRSs becomes a practical online control strategy for latency-sensitive vehicular applications in blockage-heavy urban settings.
  • Because computation allocation is closed-form, the learning agent only needs to output trajectory and phase decisions, which cuts the action dimension and memory footprint for online execution.
  • The Stackelberg reformulation implies that similar mixed discrete-continuous MEC problems can be approached hierarchically rather than as a monolithic DRL problem, potentially improving sample efficiency.
  • The robustness and scalability results indicate that the approach keeps working as the number of vehicles rises from 5 to 25 and as task sizes vary from 1 to 5 Mb.
  • The convergence comparison suggests that diffusion-based action generation stabilizes training in strongly coupled continuous action spaces compared with noise-based or entropy-based exploration baselines.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the 2.5%/3.1% margins are real, the same leader-follower decomposition could transfer to other IRS-aided MEC settings—for example, multiple UAVs or aerial-only IRS fleets—with the matching and KKT modules reused unchanged.
  • The reported margins are small enough that unmodeled IRS phase-estimation overhead or channel aging in real deployments could absorb them; adding such overhead to the model is the most direct test of practical viability.
  • The paper does not disclose the weighting factors used in the simulation, so the exact delay-energy trade-off point is not reproducible from the text alone; a reader replicating the results would need those values.
  • The scalability experiments suggest the system's bottleneck shifts from computation to wireless contention as vehicle count grows, so coupling the matching mechanism with bandwidth allocation may delay the observed saturation of energy consumption.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes an IRS-enabled low-altitude MEC architecture for vehicular networks, with an aerial MEC server on a UAV cooperating with a terrestrial MEC server and a hybrid deployment of building-installed and UAV-carried IRSs. It formulates a multi-objective optimization problem (MOOP) minimizing total task completion delay and energy consumption by jointly optimizing task offloading, UAV trajectory, IRS phase shifts, and computation resource allocation. The proposed HOOA solves the MOOP by reformulating it as a Stackelberg game: vehicles act as followers using a many-to-one matching mechanism for offloading decisions, while MEC servers act as leaders using a generative diffusion model-enhanced TD3 (GDMTD3) for trajectory and phase-shift control, plus a KKT-based closed-form computation-resource allocation. Simulations are reported against several heuristic and DRL baselines, claiming 2.5% average delay reduction and 3.1% average energy reduction, with convergence, robustness, and scalability results.

Significance. If the reported performance holds, the paper makes a useful systems contribution: the hybrid IRS architecture is a reasonable extension of existing UAV-MEC work, and the HOOA decomposition is an attractive way to handle mixed-integer, high-dimensional, time-coupled decisions. The internal mathematical parts are mostly clean: the convexity of the resource-allocation subproblem is proved correctly, and the closed-form KKT solution in Theorem 2 is a genuine optimal allocation for that subproblem. The algorithm is coherent and the benchmark comparisons are appropriate in structure. The main weakness is that the central quantitative claim, which is the basis for the paper's significance, rests entirely on an under-specified and unreleased simulator. Several scalarization weights, penalty coefficients, and energy-model constants are not reported, and all results are point estimates without seeding, confidence intervals, or statistical tests. Given the small size of the claimed gains, the performance advantage is not yet established.

major comments (4)
  1. [§5.2.3, Eq. (41); Table 1] The overall reward and the vehicle/server costs are defined through weights that are never specified. C_i(n) in Eq. (22) depends on ω_i, C_s(n) in Eq. (25) on ω_s, and the reward in Eq. (41) on ω_c and the penalties r_bv(n), r_dv(n). None of these values appear in Table 1. The UAV flight energy model in Eq. (17) also depends on η1–η4 and U_tip, which are likewise absent. Because delay and energy are conflicting objectives, all reported delay/energy numbers are conditional on this unreported scalarization, and a different weighting could alter or reverse the comparisons. Please provide the full configuration, including all weights and penalties, and ideally release code or a detailed seed/randomization protocol.
  2. [§6.2.1 and Abstract] The headline gains—2.5% average delay and 3.1% average energy—are small and are reported as deterministic point estimates. No number of independent runs, standard deviations, confidence intervals, or significance tests are given. Under Gauss-Markov mobility, Rician fading, and diffusion sampling noise, these differences may be within run-to-run variance. Moreover, the hard deadline constraint (19d) is enforced only through the penalty r_dv(n) in Eq. (41), yet no deadline-violation rate is reported. If HOOA achieves lower average delay at the cost of more deadline misses, the average-delay improvement is misleading. Please provide multi-seed statistics and the deadline-violation rate for all compared schemes.
  3. [§5.2.3 and §5.3.3] The Stackelberg reformulation and the many-to-one matching mechanism are heuristic. No theorem or argument shows that the matching output is the follower-level optimum, that the leader-follower iteration approximates a solution of the original MOOP (19), or that the resulting joint policy has any bounded suboptimality. The matching preferences in Eqs. (29)–(30) capture only transmission-related quantities and computation energy, not the full vehicle/server costs or deadline constraints; tasks left unmatched are processed locally by default. This is a plausible heuristic design, but the paper should state this limitation explicitly and, ideally, provide an optimality-gap study or an ablation showing the effect of the decomposition on the scalarized objective.
  4. [§6.2.2–§6.2.3] The convergence and sensitivity analyses are qualitative. The text claims 'higher and smoother rewards' and 'more stable delay and energy trends' without quantifying variance or convergence rate, and the hyper-parameter comparisons in Fig. 5 report single training curves without repeated-seed variability. A quantitative comparison (e.g., mean final reward with error bars, or a Wilcoxon test across seeds) is needed to support the claim that HOOA has 'superior convergence stability' and that the adopted hyper-parameters are statistically justified.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 1] The cross-reference to the architecture figure appears as 'Fig. 3.1.1' in the text but should be 'Fig. 1'.
  2. [Figs. 4 and 5] The y-axis labels in Fig. 4(b), Fig. 4(c), and all panels of Fig. 5 are 'Reward', but the plotted quantities are average task completion delay, average energy consumption, and reward, respectively. The labels should match the plotted metric.
  3. [Eq. (46)] The notation for the noise schedule is confusing: β_t is defined in terms of β_min and β_max, but the values of β_min/β_max are not given, and α_t / ̅α_t are not defined in Table 1. Please specify these values.
  4. [§5.4.1] The decision process is called a POMDP, but the state space s(n) appears to include the full system information plus history. Clarify whether there is actual partial observability or whether this is an MDP with an augmented state.
  5. [§5.5.2] The complexity of the matching mechanism is stated as O(|I| log |I|), but Algorithm 1 has an iterative rejection loop that could in principle run more than one pass. Please clarify whether the stated complexity is an average-case or worst-case bound.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the KKT resource allocation is a proven convex closed-form solution, the DRL reward is the training objective rather than a disguised prediction, and no load-bearing premise is imported solely from self-citations.

full rationale

Walked the derivation chain. (1) The Stackelberg reformulation decomposes MOOP (19) into follower-level Pf (26) and leader-level Pl (28) with costs defined in Eqs. (22), (25), and reward in Eq. (41). This is an explicit reformulation/approximation, not an equation defined in terms of its own conclusion. (2) The KKT-based resource allocation is derived genuinely: Pc_l in (54) follows from Pl by fixing O, Q, theta and dropping F-independent terms; the objective's Hessian is shown positive semidefinite in Eq. (55), and Eq. (56) is obtained from stationarity, primal feasibility, and complementary slackness in Eqs. (57)-(61). This is a real convex closed-form optimum, not a fitted parameter relabeled as a prediction. (3) The reward function r(n) in Eq. (41) is the negative scalarized sum of the same vehicle/server costs used to define the reported delay and energy metrics; this is a standard training objective, and the paper's superiority claims come from simulator comparisons against TD3, DDPG, SAC, and heuristic baselines, not from construction. Missing scalarization weights, penalty coefficients, random seeds, and energy-model constants are reproducibility/verification concerns, not circularity. (4) Self-citations [49], [51], and [59] support background trade-off statements and complexity calculations only; no uniqueness theorem or load-bearing premise is imported from the authors' prior work. No claimed prediction reduces by construction to its inputs, so no circularity is identified.

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

The central claim is simulation-based. It depends on many hand-set system constants, several unreported scalarization weights, and DRL hyperparameters tuned on the evaluation environment. No new physical entities are posited—the 'hybrid IRS deployment' is a system configuration whose benefits are only demonstrated in simulation. The Stackelberg/matching decomposition is an ad hoc reformulation without an equivalence proof.

free parameters (4)
  • ω_i, ω_s, ω_c weighting factors = not reported
    The scalarized costs in Eqs. (22), (25) and reward (41) depend on these weights, but Table 1 never lists their values. They control the entire delay/energy trade-off.
  • DRL hyperparameters (diffusion steps Td, learning rates, mini-batch, soft-update rate) = Td=10, α=3e-4, B=256, τ=5e-3
    Selected via hyper-parameter sensitivity analysis (Sec. 6.2.3) on the same evaluation environment; the reported convergence and performance are conditional on these tuned settings.
  • Channel/energy model constants (γrf, ρ, σ², path-loss exponents, aerodynamic constants η1..η4, U_tip) = γrf=3 dB, ρ=10^-3, σ²=-98 dBm; path-loss exponents not stated
    Taken from standard simulation practice or refs [48], but not validated against measurements; the simulated gains depend on them.
  • Penalty coefficients r_bv(n), r_dv(n) in reward = not specified
    Constraint-violation penalties in Eqs. (41)-(42) are never quantified, yet they shape the learned policy and reported feasibility.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Blockage assumption: vehicles and BS have no direct LoS; vehicle-BS link follows Rayleigh fading (Eq. (7)); vehicle-IRS and IRS-BS links follow Rician fading with dominant LoS (Eqs. (5), (8)).
    Section 3.2.2. The whole IRS benefit relies on these channel statistics; if the LoS dominance or blockage is different, the architecture's advantage changes.
  • domain assumption Time-slot discretization with system dynamics constant within each slot of duration δt = T/N.
    Section 3.1.1. This permits the per-slot formulation but may smooth fast fading/blockage dynamics.
  • ad hoc to paper The Stackelberg reformulation (MEC servers as leader, vehicles as followers) is a valid decomposition of the original MOOP.
    Section 5.2.3. No theorem establishes equivalence between the MOOP and the sequential leader-follower game; optimality of the decomposition is unproven.
  • ad hoc to paper The many-to-one matching mechanism (Algorithm 1) produces a feasible and near-optimal follower response.
    Section 5.3. Preference values in Eqs. (29)-(30) are chosen heuristically; no stability or optimality proof is given for the matching outcome.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Hierarchical Online Optimization Approach for IRS-enabled Low-altitude MEC in Vehicular Networks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/W77AUKHB

@misc{pith2026251224659,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Hierarchical Online Optimization Approach for IRS-enabled Low-altitude MEC in Vehicular Networks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/W77AUKHB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2512.24659}
}
read the original abstract

In this paper, we propose an intelligent reflecting surface (IRS)-enabled low-altitude multi-access edge computing (MEC) architecture, where an aerial MEC server cooperates with a terrestrial MEC server to provide computing services, while hybrid IRSs (i.e., building-installed and UAV-carried IRSs) are deployed to enhance the air-ground connectivity under blockage. Based on this architecture, we formulate a multi-objective optimization problem (MOOP) to minimize the task completion delay and energy consumption by jointly optimizing task offloading, UAV trajectory control, IRS phase-shift configuration, and computation resource allocation. The considered problem is NP-hard, and thus we propose a hierarchical online optimization approach (HOOA) to efficiently solve the problem. Specifically, we reformulate the MOOP as a Stackelberg game, where MEC servers collectively act as the leader to determine the system-level decisions, while the vehicles act as followers to make individual decisions. At the follower level, we present a many-to-one matching mechanism to generate feasible discrete decisions. At the leader level, we propose a generative diffusion model-enhanced twin delayed deep deterministic policy gradient (GDMTD3) algorithm integrated with a Karush-Kuhn-Tucker (KKT)-based method, which is a deep reinforcement learning (DRL)-based approach, to determine the continuous decisions. Simulation results demonstrate that the proposed HOOA achieves significant improvements, which reduces average task completion delay by 2.5% and average energy consumption by 3.1% compared with the best-performing benchmark approach and state-of-the-art DRL algorithm, respectively. Moreover, the proposed HOOA exhibits superior convergence stability while maintaining strong robustness and scalability in dynamic environments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.24659 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. IRS-enabled low-altitude MEC architecture for vehicular net [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The proposed HOOA. The MOOP is reformulated as a Stackelberg game with follower-level and leader-level problems. At the follower level, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. System performance comparison among different approaches. (a) Average task completion delay. (b) Average energy consumption. (c) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of convergence curves of the proposed HOOA approach and some state-of-the-art DRL algorithms. (a) Reward. (b) Average [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Reward comparison under different hyper-parameter settings of the HOOA approach. (a) Different diffusion steps. (b) Different learning rates. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: System performance of the HOOA approach with the task size. (a) Average task completion delay. (b) Average energy consumption. (c) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: System performance of the HOOA approach with the number of vehicles. (a) Average task completion delay. (b) Average energy consumption. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_7.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith

  1. [59]

    Multi-objective aerial collaborative secure communication opti- mization via generative diffusion model-enabled deep reinforce- ment learning,

    C. Zhang, G. Sun, J. Li, Q. Wu, J. Wang, D. Niyato, and Y. Liu, “Multi-objective aerial collaborative secure communication opti- mization via generative diffusion model-enabled deep reinforce- ment learning,”IEEE Trans. Mob. Comput., vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 3041– 3058, 2025

    2025

  2. [1]

    From ground to sky: Architectures, appli- cations, and challenges shaping low-altitude wireless networks,

    W. Yuan, Y. Cui, J. Wang, F. Liu, G. Sun, T. Xiang, J. Xu, S. Jin, D. Niyato, S. Coleri, S. Sun, S. Mao, A. Jamalipour, D. I. Kim, M.-S. Alouini, and X. Shen, “From ground to sky: Architectures, appli- cations, and challenges shaping low-altitude wireless networks,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.12308, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  3. [2]

    Advancing the control of low- altitude wireless networks: Architecture, design principles, and future directions,

    H. Jin, W. Yuan, J. Wu, J. Wang, D. Niyato, X. Wang, G. K. Karagiannidis, Z. Lin, Y. Gong, D. I. Kim, A. Petropulu, M. S. Greco, A. Jamalipour, and S. Sun, “Advancing the control of low- altitude wireless networks: Architecture, design principles, and future directions,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.07967, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  4. [3]

    Generative AI-enabled wireless communica- tions for robust low-altitude economy networking,

    C. Zhao, J. Wang, R. Zhang, D. Niyato, G. Sun, H. Du, D. I. Kim, and A. Jamalipour, “Generative AI-enabled wireless communica- tions for robust low-altitude economy networking,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.18118, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  5. [4]

    Service-oriented segmented trajectory design for low-altitude UAV-assisted MEC networks,

    P . Wu, F. Xiao, C. Sha, and H. Huang, “Service-oriented segmented trajectory design for low-altitude UAV-assisted MEC networks,” IEEE Trans. Mob. Comput., pp. 1–17, 2025

    2025

  6. [5]

    Joint task offloading and resource allocation scheme with UAV assistance in vehicle edge computing networks,

    Z. Liu, L. Gao, Z. Ma, J. Su, F. Li, Y. Yuan, and X. Guan, “Joint task offloading and resource allocation scheme with UAV assistance in vehicle edge computing networks,”Comput. Networks, vol. 273, p. 111746, 2025

    2025

  7. [6]

    When UAV swarm meets IRS: Collaborative secure communications in low-altitude wireless networks,

    J. Li, X. Liang, G. Sun, H. Kang, J. Wang, D. Niyato, S. Mao, and A. Jamalipour, “When UAV swarm meets IRS: Collaborative secure communications in low-altitude wireless networks,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.22117, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  8. [7]

    6G communication new paradigm: The integration of autonomous aerial vehicles and intelligent reflecting surfaces,

    Z. Ning, T. Li, Y. Wu, X. Wang, Q. Wu, F. R. Yu, and S. Guo, “6G communication new paradigm: The integration of autonomous aerial vehicles and intelligent reflecting surfaces,”IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor., vol. 27, no. 6, pp. 3382–3416, 2025

    2025

Show all 61 references
  1. [8]

    Ris-assisted data collection and wireless power transfer in low-altitude wireless networks,

    W. Xie, G. Sun, J. Li, J. Wang, Y. Liu, D. Niyato, D. I. Kim, and S. Mao, “Ris-assisted data collection and wireless power transfer in low-altitude wireless networks,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.19651, 2025

    2025

  2. [9]

    UAV-assisted task offloading in vehicular edge computing networks,

    X. Dai, Z. Xiao, H. Jiang, and J. C. S. Lui, “UAV-assisted task offloading in vehicular edge computing networks,”IEEE Trans. Mob. Comput., vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 2520–2534, 2024

    2024

  3. [10]

    Task offloading strategies for mobile edge computing: A survey,

    S. Dong, J. Tang, K. Abbas, R. Hou, J. Kamruzzaman, L. Rutkowski, and R. Buyya, “Task offloading strategies for mobile edge computing: A survey,”Comput. Networks, vol. 254, p. 110791, 2024

    2024

  4. [11]

    Resource allocation in RISs-assisted UAV-enabled MEC network with computation capacity improvement,

    L. Jiao, L. Gao, J. Zheng, P . Yang, and W. Xue, “Resource allocation in RISs-assisted UAV-enabled MEC network with computation capacity improvement,”Comput. Commun., vol. 228, p. 107953, 2024

    2024

  5. [12]

    Task offloading decision-making 17 algorithm for vehicular edge computing: A deep-reinforcement- learning-based approach,

    W. Shi, L. Chen, and X. Zhu, “Task offloading decision-making 17 algorithm for vehicular edge computing: A deep-reinforcement- learning-based approach,”Sensors, vol. 23, no. 17, p. 7595, 2023

    2023

  6. [13]

    Metaheuristic algorithms for optimization: A brief review,

    V . Tomar, M. Bansal, and P . Singh, “Metaheuristic algorithms for optimization: A brief review,”Engineering Proceedings, vol. 59, no. 1, p. 238, 2023

    2023

  7. [14]

    A novel approach for computation offloading based on a parallel collaborative genetic algorithm in MEC,

    W. Li, R. Tang, X. Wang, X. Zhang, D. Ren, H. Jiang, and Z. Wen, “A novel approach for computation offloading based on a parallel collaborative genetic algorithm in MEC,”Wirel. Pers. Commun., vol. 140, no. 3-4, pp. 1119–1146, 2025

    2025

  8. [15]

    Applications of deep reinforcement learning in communications and networking: A survey,

    N. C. Luong, D. T. Hoang, S. Gong, D. Niyato, P . Wang, Y. Liang, and D. I. Kim, “Applications of deep reinforcement learning in communications and networking: A survey,”IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutorials, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 3133–3174, 2019

    2019

  9. [16]

    Joint service caching and computation offloading scheme with 3D UAV de- ployment for ICVs in UAV-assisted VEC,

    C. Li, K. Jiang, Z. Zhang, C. Xiong, and S. Wan, “Joint service caching and computation offloading scheme with 3D UAV de- ployment for ICVs in UAV-assisted VEC,”IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 73, no. 11, pp. 10 886–10 899, 2025

    2025

  10. [17]

    UAV-assisted vehicular edge computing system: Min-max fair offloading and position optimization,

    W. Zhang, Z. L ¨u, M. Ge, and L. Wang, “UAV-assisted vehicular edge computing system: Min-max fair offloading and position optimization,”IEEE Trans. Consumer Electron., vol. 70, no. 4, pp. 7412–7423, 2024

    2024

  11. [18]

    Two-stage deep energy optimization in IRS-assisted UAV-based edge computing systems,

    J. Wu, Z. Yu, J. Guo, Z. Tang, T. Wang, and W. Jia, “Two-stage deep energy optimization in IRS-assisted UAV-based edge computing systems,”IEEE Trans. Mob. Comput., vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 449–465, 2025

    2025

  12. [19]

    Multi-IRS-aided secure communication in UAV-MEC networks,

    Y. Gao, Z. Wang, Y. Zhang, W. Lu, J. Tang, N. Zhao, and F. Gao, “Multi-IRS-aided secure communication in UAV-MEC networks,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 74, no. 5, pp. 7327–7338, 2025

    2025

  13. [20]

    Energy- and latency-efficient resource allocation for RIS-assisted UAV-USV cooperative MEC network,

    Y. Liao, L. Liu, and Y. Ma, “Energy- and latency-efficient resource allocation for RIS-assisted UAV-USV cooperative MEC network,” IEEE Trans. Green Commun. Netw., vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 2087–2100, 2025

  14. [21]

    Aerial-IRSs- assisted energy-efficient task offloading and computing,

    W. Jiang, B. Ai, M. Li, W. Wu, Y. Pei, and X. Shen, “Aerial-IRSs- assisted energy-efficient task offloading and computing,”IEEE Internet Things J., vol. 11, no. 11, pp. 20 178–20 193, 2024

    2024

  15. [22]

    Latency minimiza- tion in IRS-UAV assisted WPT-MEC systems: An ID-AOPDDQN- based trajectory and phase shift optimization approach,

    W. Zhou, L. Zhai, Z. Lu, K. Xue, and T. Zhang, “Latency minimiza- tion in IRS-UAV assisted WPT-MEC systems: An ID-AOPDDQN- based trajectory and phase shift optimization approach,”Comput. Networks, vol. 263, p. 111215, 2025

    2025

  16. [23]

    Toward 6G: Latency-optimized MEC systems with UAV and RIS integration,

    A. Alshahrani, “Toward 6G: Latency-optimized MEC systems with UAV and RIS integration,”Mathematics, vol. 13, no. 5, p. 871, 2025

    2025

  17. [24]

    J. Kim, E. Hong, J. Jung, J. Kang, and S. Jeong, “Energy mini- mization in reconfigurable intelligent surface-assisted unmanned aerial vehicle-enabled wireless powered mobile edge computing systems with rate-splitting multiple access,”Drones, vol. 7, no. 12, p. 688, 2023

    2023

  18. [25]

    STAR-RIS-assisted uav-enabled MEC network: Minimizing long-term latency and system stability optimization,

    Y. Zeng, S. Chen, and Y. Ge, “STAR-RIS-assisted uav-enabled MEC network: Minimizing long-term latency and system stability optimization,”Comput. Networks, vol. 270, p. 111563, 2025

    2025

  19. [26]

    Energy optimization in dual-RIS UAV-aided MEC-enabled internet of vehicles,

    E. T. Michailidis, N. I. Miridakis, A. Michalas, E. Skondras, and D. J. Vergados, “Energy optimization in dual-RIS UAV-aided MEC-enabled internet of vehicles,”Sensors, vol. 21, no. 13, p. 4392, 2021

    2021

  20. [27]

    Energy minimization for IRS-and-UAV-assisted mobile edge computing,

    T. Li, Y. Li, P . Hu, Y. Chen, and Z. Yin, “Energy minimization for IRS-and-UAV-assisted mobile edge computing,”Ad Hoc Networks, vol. 164, p. 103635, 2024

    2024

  21. [28]

    Energy-efficient STAR-RIS enhanced UAV-enabled MEC net- works with bi-directional task offloading,

    H. Xiao, X. Hu, W. Zhang, W. Wang, K. Wong, and K. Yang, “Energy-efficient STAR-RIS enhanced UAV-enabled MEC net- works with bi-directional task offloading,”IEEE Trans. Wirel. Commun., vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 3258–3272, 2025

    2025

  22. [29]

    Energy-efficient task offloading in UAV-RIS-assisted mobile edge computing with NOMA,

    M. Zhang, Z. Su, Q. Xu, Y. Qi, and D. Fang, “Energy-efficient task offloading in UAV-RIS-assisted mobile edge computing with NOMA,” inIEEE INFOCOM 2024 - IEEE Conference on Computer Communications Workshops. IEEE, Vancouver, BC, Canada, May 20, pp. 1–6, 2024

    2024

  23. [30]

    Energy min- imization of RIS-assisted cooperative UAV-USV MEC network,

    Y. Liao, Y. Song, S. Xia, Y. Han, N. Xu, and X. Zhai, “Energy min- imization of RIS-assisted cooperative UAV-USV MEC network,” IEEE Internet Things J., vol. 11, no. 20, pp. 32 490–32 502, 2024

    2024

  24. [31]

    Uav- mounted RIS-aided mobile edge computing system: A DDQN- based optimization approach,

    M. Wu, S. Zhu, C. Li, J. Zhu, Y. Chen, X. Liu, and R. Liu, “Uav- mounted RIS-aided mobile edge computing system: A DDQN- based optimization approach,”Drones, vol. 8, no. 5, p. 184, 2024

    2024

  25. [32]

    Energy-efficiency opti- mization of active flying-RIS-assisted mobile-edge computing net- works: A deep-reinforcement-learning approach,

    W. Chen, Y. Zou, J. Zhu, and L. Zhai, “Energy-efficiency opti- mization of active flying-RIS-assisted mobile-edge computing net- works: A deep-reinforcement-learning approach,”IEEE Internet Things J., vol. 12, no. 13, pp. 23 563–23 576, 2025

    2025

  26. [33]

    UAV- IRS-assisted energy harvesting for edge computing based on deep reinforcement learning,

    S. Pang, L. Wang, H. Gui, S. Qiao, X. He, and Z. Zhao, “UAV- IRS-assisted energy harvesting for edge computing based on deep reinforcement learning,”Future Gener. Comput. Syst., vol. 163, p. 107527, 2025

    2025

  27. [34]

    Propagation channels for mmWave vehicular communications: State-of-the-art and future research directions,

    F. Jameel, S. Wyne, S. J. Nawaz, and Z. Chang, “Propagation channels for mmWave vehicular communications: State-of-the-art and future research directions,”IEEE Wirel. Commun., vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 144–150, 2019

    2019

  28. [35]

    Accessing from the sky: A tutorial on UAV communications for 5G and beyond,

    Y. Zeng, Q. Wu, and R. Zhang, “Accessing from the sky: A tutorial on UAV communications for 5G and beyond,”Proc. IEEE, vol. 107, no. 12, pp. 2327–2375, 2019

    2019

  29. [36]

    Mobility models, traces and impact of mobility on opportunistic routing algorithms: A survey,

    S. Batabyal and P . Bhaumik, “Mobility models, traces and impact of mobility on opportunistic routing algorithms: A survey,”IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutorials, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 1679–1707, 2015

    2015

  30. [37]

    Securing UAV commu- nications via joint trajectory and power control,

    G. Zhang, Q. Wu, M. Cui, and R. Zhang, “Securing UAV commu- nications via joint trajectory and power control,”IEEE Trans. Wirel. Commun., vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 1376–1389, 2019

    2019

  31. [38]

    Joint computation offloading and resource allocation for edge-cloud collaboration in internet of vehicles via deep reinforcement learning,

    J. Huang, J. Wan, B. Lv, Q. Ye, and Y. Chen, “Joint computation offloading and resource allocation for edge-cloud collaboration in internet of vehicles via deep reinforcement learning,”IEEE Syst. J., vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 2500–2511, 2023

    2023

  32. [39]

    Joint load balancing and offloading in vehicular edge computing and networks,

    Y. Dai, D. Xu, S. Maharjan, and Y. Zhang, “Joint load balancing and offloading in vehicular edge computing and networks,”IEEE Internet Things J., vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 4377–4387, 2019

    2019

  33. [40]

    Non-cooperative resource com- petition game by virtual referee in multi-cell OFDMA networks,

    Z. Han, Z. Ji, and K. J. R. Liu, “Non-cooperative resource com- petition game by virtual referee in multi-cell OFDMA networks,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 1079–1090, 2007

    2007

  34. [41]

    3D trajectory optimization in Rician fading for UAV-enabled data harvesting,

    C. You and R. Zhang, “3D trajectory optimization in Rician fading for UAV-enabled data harvesting,”IEEE Trans. Wirel. Commun., vol. 18, no. 6, pp. 3192–3207, 2019

    2019

  35. [42]

    IRS-assisted secure UAV transmission via joint trajectory and beamforming design,

    X. Pang, N. Zhao, J. Tang, C. Wu, D. Niyato, and K. Wong, “IRS-assisted secure UAV transmission via joint trajectory and beamforming design,”IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 70, no. 2, pp. 1140–1152, 2022

    2022

  36. [43]

    QoS-driven spec- trum sharing for reconfigurable intelligent surfaces (RISs) aided vehicular networks,

    Y. Chen, Y. Wang, J. Zhang, and M. D. Renzo, “QoS-driven spec- trum sharing for reconfigurable intelligent surfaces (RISs) aided vehicular networks,”IEEE Trans. Wirel. Commun., vol. 20, no. 9, pp. 5969–5985, 2021

    2021

  37. [44]

    Intelligent re- flecting surface-aided wireless communications: A tutorial,

    Q. Wu, S. Zhang, B. Zheng, C. You, and R. Zhang, “Intelligent re- flecting surface-aided wireless communications: A tutorial,”IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 69, no. 5, pp. 3313–3351, 2021

    2021

  38. [45]

    A survey on mobile edge computing: The communication perspective,

    Y. Mao, C. You, J. Zhang, K. Huang, and K. B. Letaief, “A survey on mobile edge computing: The communication perspective,”IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutorials, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 2322–2358, 2017

    2017

  39. [46]

    Joint optimization for co- operative service-caching, computation-offloading, and resource- allocations over EH/MEC 6G ultra-dense mobile networks,

    Z. Chen, F. Wang, and X. Zhang, “Joint optimization for co- operative service-caching, computation-offloading, and resource- allocations over EH/MEC 6G ultra-dense mobile networks,”IEEE Trans. Wirel. Commun., vol. 24, no. 7, pp. 5780–5795, 2025

    2025

  40. [47]

    Joint task offloading and resource allocation for energy-constrained mobile edge com- puting,

    H. Jiang, X. Dai, Z. Xiao, and A. Iyengar, “Joint task offloading and resource allocation for energy-constrained mobile edge com- puting,”IEEE Trans. Mob. Comput., vol. 22, no. 7, pp. 4000–4015, 2023

    2023

  41. [48]

    Energy minimization for wireless communication with rotary-wing UAV,

    Y. Zeng, J. Xu, and R. Zhang, “Energy minimization for wireless communication with rotary-wing UAV,”IEEE Trans. Wirel. Com- mun., vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 2329–2345, 2019

    2019

  42. [49]

    Multi-objective optimization for multi-UAV-assisted mo- bile edge computing,

    G. Sun, Y. Wang, Z. Sun, Q. Wu, J. Kang, D. Niyato, and V . C. M. Leung, “Multi-objective optimization for multi-UAV-assisted mo- bile edge computing,”IEEE Trans. Mob. Comput., vol. 23, no. 12, pp. 14 803–14 820, 2024

    2024

  43. [50]

    Solv- ing multiobjective mixed integer convex optimization problems,

    M. D. Santis, G. Eichfelder, J. Niebling, and S. Rockt ¨aschel, “Solv- ing multiobjective mixed integer convex optimization problems,” SIAM J. Optim., vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 3122–3145, 2020

    2020

  44. [51]

    TJCCT: A two-timescale approach for UAV-assisted mobile edge computing,

    Z. Sun, G. Sun, Q. Wu, L. He, S. Liang, H. Pan, D. Niyato, C. Yuen, and V . C. M. Leung, “TJCCT: A two-timescale approach for UAV-assisted mobile edge computing,”IEEE Trans. Mob. Comput., vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 3130–3147, 2025

    2025

  45. [52]

    Matching the- ory for future wireless networks: fundamentals and applications,

    Y. Gu, W. Saad, M. Bennis, M. Debbah, and Z. Han, “Matching the- ory for future wireless networks: fundamentals and applications,” IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 53, no. 5, pp. 52–59, 2015

    2015

  46. [53]

    DRL-based long- term resource planning for task offloading policies in multiserver edge computing networks,

    H. Li, K. D. R. Assis, S. Yan, and D. Simeonidou, “DRL-based long- term resource planning for task offloading policies in multiserver edge computing networks,”IEEE Trans. Netw. Serv. Manag., vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 4151–4164, 2022

    2022

  47. [54]

    Stack- elberg game of energy consumption and latency in MEC systems with NOMA,

    K. Wang, Z. Ding, D. K. C. So, and G. K. Karagiannidis, “Stack- elberg game of energy consumption and latency in MEC systems with NOMA,”IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 69, no. 4, pp. 2191–2206, 2021

    2021

  48. [55]

    Learning-based incentive mechanism for task freshness-aware 18 vehicular twin migration,

    J. Zhang, J. Nie, J. Wen, J. Kang, M. Xu, X. Luo, and D. Niyato, “Learning-based incentive mechanism for task freshness-aware 18 vehicular twin migration,” in43rd IEEE International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems, ICDCS 2023 - Workshops. IEEE, Hong Kong, July 18-2...

    2023

  49. [56]

    Deep reinforcement learning for internet of things: A comprehensive survey,

    W. Chen, X. Qiu, T. Cai, H. Dai, Z. Zheng, and Y. Zhang, “Deep reinforcement learning for internet of things: A comprehensive survey,”IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutorials, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 1659– 1692, 2021

    2021

  50. [57]

    Twin delayed deep deterministic policy gradient-based intelligent computation offloading for IoT,

    S. Chen, B. Tang, and K. Wang, “Twin delayed deep deterministic policy gradient-based intelligent computation offloading for IoT,” Digit. Commun. Networks, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 836–845, 2023

    2023

  51. [58]

    Denoising diffusion probabilistic models,

    J. Ho, A. Jain, and P . Abbeel, “Denoising diffusion probabilistic models,”Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst., vol. 33, pp. 6840–6851, 2020

    2020

  52. [60]

    Partial computation offloading and adaptive task scheduling for 5G-enabled vehicular networks,

    Z. Ning, P . Dong, X. Wang, X. Hu, J. Liu, L. Guo, B. Hu, R. Y. Kwok, and V . C. M. Leung, “Partial computation offloading and adaptive task scheduling for 5G-enabled vehicular networks,”IEEE Trans. Mob. Comput., vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 1319–1333, 2022

    2022

  53. [61]

    Addressing function approximation error in actor-critic methods,

    S. Fujimoto, H. van Hoof, and D. Meger, “Addressing function approximation error in actor-critic methods,” inProceedings of the 35th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2018, Stockholmsm¨ assan, vol. 80. PMLR, Stockholm, Sweden, July 10-15, pp. 1582–1591, 2018. ...

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.