FLoRa: Flight-Assisted Data Collection from Duty Cycling LoRa Nodes under Energy Constraints
Organizations: Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Tirupati, Andhra Pradesh, 517619, India
Abstract
Data collection using Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) is challenging when LoRa IoT Devices (IoTDs) duty-cycle to conserve battery. Under energy constraints, a UAV must decide which IoTDs to visit, in what order, where to hover, and how many times to probe each node, while time-based data freshness decays. Tractably solving this problem requires a multi-level optimization architecture: discrete combinatorial optimization for routing, continuous global optimization for spatial positioning, and sequential decision-making under uncertainty. We propose FLoRa, a Flight-assisted LoRa data collection architecture using Simulated Annealing (SA) for path planning, Covariance Matrix Adaptation Evolution Strategy (CMA-ES) for hover positioning, and Partially Observable Markov Decision Processes (POMDPs) for probing IoTDs. To quantify collection utility from duty-cycling nodes, we introduce the Value of Information for Pull-based systems (VIP), a metric that rewards fresh data and penalizes failed probes, imposing well-posedness and preventing indefinite probing when an IoTD is off. Tracking hard battery constraints on every POMDP sample path requires state augmentation, worsening the curse of dimensionality. For tractability, SA and CMA-ES work on the hard battery constraints, while at the POMDP layer we relax them into soft average constraints via Lagrangian relaxation. Since solving the network-wide POMDP is computationally complex, we decompose it into node-level POMDPs by approximating inter-node time dependency using a forward-decomposition technique. Evaluation shows FLoRa outperforms metaheuristic, greedy, and deep reinforcement learning baselines by 30.6%, 27.8%, and 15.2% in total expected VIP, while increasing node coverage by 24.5%, 29.2%, and 8.8%, and successful collections by 24.3%, 25.6%, and 15.2%, respectively.
Figures & tables
| Ref | Problem | Path | Positioning | Type | Probing |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [ TSP_2 ] | TSP | All | Above IoTDs | Push | Deterministic |
| [ CE_TSP ] | CE-TSP | All | IoTD neighborhood | Push | Deterministic |
| [ OP_DC ] | OP | Subset | Above IoTDs | Push | Deterministic |
| [ CEOP ] | CEOP | Subset | IoTD neighborhood | Push | Deterministic |
| FLoRa | PTCOP | Subset | IoTD neighborhood | Pull | Probabilistic |
| Work | Energy Constraint | Freshness | Duty cycling | Optimization | Method |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [ LoRa_UAV_AoI ] | ✓ | AoI | Scheduled | Path and hover | Algorithm |
| [ TC_UAV_DC_4 ] | × | × | × | Trajectory | Exact methods |
| [ UAV_Hover_Flight_Heur ] | × | × | × | Trajectory and hover | Meta heuristics |
| [ UAV_OP_Traj_Opt ] | ✓ | × | × | Trajectory | Meta heuristics |
| [ UAV_Subset_Visit_AoI ] | ✓ | AoI | × | Trajectory and hover | Exact methods |
| [ UAV_Traj_Opt_DC ] | × | × | Scheduled | Trajectory | Exact methods |
| Category | Parameter | 3 km | 12 km |
|---|---|---|---|
| Network | Deployment area | ||
| km 2 | km 2 | ||
| Number of IoTDs ( ) | 20, 40 | ||
| IoTD radius ( ) | 3 km | 12 km | |
| Device availability ( ) | |||
| Channel / Radio | Bandwidth ( ) | 125 kHz | |
| Total Expected VIP | Coverage | successful collections | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline | 20 | 40 | Avg | 20 | 40 | Avg | 20 | 40 | Avg |
| GUHO | +27.3 | +22.1 | +24.7 | +43.8 | +26.9 | +35.3 | +21.6 | +18.6 | +20.1 |
| ACO | +19.2 | +22.3 | +20.8 | +18.6 | +16.6 | +17.6 | +16.6 | +12.7 | +14.6 |
| PPO | +17.1 | +14.6 | +15.8 | +14.2 | +8.9 | +11.6 | +17.7 | +10.4 | +14.0 |
| SSA | +15.8 | +15.9 | +15.9 | +15.0 | +14.2 | +14.6 | +14.3 | +10.0 | +12.1 |
| GU | +21.4 | +22.0 | +21.7 | +27.8 | +17.9 | +22.8 | +15.2 | +26.1 | +20.7 |
| Total Expected VIP | Coverage | successful collections | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline | 20 | 40 | Avg | 20 | 40 | Avg | 20 | 40 | Avg |
| GUHO | +20.5 | +16.1 | +18.3 | +19.3 | +16.1 | +17.7 | +29.1 | +14.3 | +21.7 |
| ACO | +44.3 | +49.2 | +46.8 | +34.2 | +38.2 | +36.2 | +39.5 | +37.0 | +38.2 |
| PPO | +16.1 | +12.9 | +14.5 | +6.4 | +5.5 | +6.0 | +23.6 | +9.1 | +16.3 |
| SSA | +38.7 | +39.1 | +38.9 | +30.8 | +28.5 | +29.7 | +36.7 | +27.7 | +32.2 |
| GU | +41.1 | +52.1 | +46.6 | +30.8 | +51.2 | +41.0 | +36.7 | +43.3 | +40.0 |
| 3 km | 12 km | Overall | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Category | VIP | Cov. | Succ. | VIP | Cov. | Succ. | VIP | Cov. | Succ. |
| Metaheuristic | +18.4 | +16.1 | +13.3 | +42.8 | +33.0 | +35.2 | +30.6 | +24.5 | +24.3 |
| Greedy | +23.2 | +29.0 | +20.4 | +32.5 | +29.4 | +30.9 | +27.8 | +29.2 | +25.6 |
| DRL | +15.8 | +11.6 | +14.0 | +14.5 | +6.0 | +16.3 | +15.2 | +8.8 | +15.2 |
| Method | Path Planning | Hover Opt. | Mean Time |
|---|---|---|---|
| GU | Greedy | None (hover-on-node) | 2 s |
| SSA | SA | None (hover-on-node) | 6.2 s |
| GUHO | Greedy | CMA-ES | 112 s |
| PPO | Learned (DRL) | Learned (DRL) | 308 s (5.1 min) |
| FLoRa | SA | CMA-ES (+ nested POMDP) | 724 s (12.1 min) |
Appendix figures & tables1 asset
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Symbol | Description |
|---|---|
| Data-availability probability of IoTD in region | |
| Availability probability vector | |
| Bernoulli random variable representing IoTD ’s availability state, | |
| UAV battery budget | |
| Battery consumed during flight | |
| Probing energy budget, |