Novel hierarchical framework optimizes power control and trajectories in multi-UAV systems, enhancing communication efficiency.
Multi-unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) systems are crucial for establishing resilient communication networks in disaster-stricken areas, but their limited energy and dynamic characteristics pose significant challenges for sustained and reliable service provision. Optimizing resource allocation in this situation is a complex sequential decision-making problem, which is naturally suitable for multi-agent reinforcement learning (MARL). However, the most advanced MARL methods (e.g., multi-agent proximal policy optimization (MAPPO)) often encounter difficulties in the “loosely coupled” multi-UAV environment due to their overly centralized evaluation mechanism, resulting in unclear credit assignment and inhibiting personalized optimization. To overcome this, we propose a novel hierarchical framework supported by MAPPO with decoupled critics (MAPPO-DC). Our framework employs an efficient clustering algorithm for user association in the upper layer, while MAPPO-DC is used in the lower layer to enable each UAV to learn customized trajectories and power control strategies. MAPPO-DC achieves a complex balance between global coordination and personalized exploration by redesigning the update rules of the critic network, allowing for precise and personalized credit assignment in a loosely coupled environment. In addition, we designed a composite reward function to guide the learning process towards the goal of proportional fairness. The simulation results show that our proposed MAPPO-DC outperforms existing baselines, including independent proximal policy optimization (IPPO) and standard MAPPO, in terms of communication performance and sample efficiency, validating the effectiveness of our tailored MARL architecture for the task. Through model robustness experiments, we have verified that our proposed MAPPO-DC still has certain advantages in strongly coupled environments.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wu et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: