Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 41 references

Sustainable Smart Farm Networks: Enhancing Resilience and Efficiency with Decision Theory-Guided Deep Reinforcement Learning

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper reports that a decision-theory-guided PPO agent trains 47.5% faster than a transfer-learning-enhanced PPO while matching its monitoring quality and energy sustainability.

desk verdict A plausible new combination of a decision-theoretic prior with PPO for energy-constrained sensor monitoring, but the energy bookkeeping is inconsistent enough that the headline 47.5% runtime claim needs verification. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.03721 v1 pith:AGW7JCS4 submitted 2025-05-06 cs.LG cs.MA

Dian Chen , Zelin Wan , Dong Sam Ha , Jin-Hee Cho This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGcs.MA
keywords smartfarmsresiliencesustainabilitydeepreinforcementlearningdecisiontheorysolarsensorstransferwirelesssensornetworks
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 reports that a decision-theory-guided deep reinforcement learning agent, DT-PPO, trains 47.5% faster than a transfer-learning-enhanced PPO baseline on a simulated solar-powered smart farm, while reaching comparable monitoring quality and accumulated reward. The intended significance is that DRL's slow-convergence problem can be alleviated without a pre-trained source model, which is the main practical barrier for transfer learning in resource-limited deployments. The system couples a three-action transmission-threshold policy with a utility-based decision-theory component and a Subjective-Logic opinion aggregator that filters deceptive data under cyber-attacks. If the claim holds, smart farm monitoring can maintain high data quality under attacks while preserving sensor energy.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is the integrated action distribution $\mathrm{Logit}_{NN}(a^*)+w\cdot \mathrm{Prob}_{DT}(a^*)$, followed by a softmax, where $\mathrm{Prob}_{DT}$ is the softmax of the decision-theoretic utility function $U(s_t,a_t)=w_1 A(s_t,a_t)+w_2 E(s_t,a_t)$ and $w$ decays from 1 at rate 0.0003. This single additive identity lets a static expected-utility heuristic seed the deep policy and then surrender control to it, which is what produces the reported early-training speedup. The secondary mechanism is the Subjective-Logic aggregation stage, which maintains belief, uncertainty, and base-rate masses over three health-state classes, uses uncertainty maximization to handle conflicting evidence, and computes a projected distance to reject deceptive data.

What would settle it

Re-run the simulation with a realistic sensor battery, a few watt-hours of storage and milliwatt-scale solar charging; if the DT-PPO advantages in remaining energy and runtime shrink or reverse, the central energy-efficiency claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that DT-PPO outperforms TL-enhanced DRL: with a 30% compromised-sensor ratio and attack probability $P_A=0.1$, the DT-guided agent matches a fully transferred PPO model in monitoring quality and accumulated reward during early training, exceeds partially transferred and untransferred PPO, and reduces average training runtime by 47.5%. The mechanism is an integration of the two decision processes: the decision-theory component computes utilities for the actions 'increase', 'decrease', or 'hold' the transmission threshold $\rho$, converts them to a probability distribution via softmax, and adds that distribution to the PPO neural network's logits with a weight that decays from 1 at rate 0.0003. This gives the agent a non-random, utility-based starting policy, avoiding DRL's cold-start penalty, while the learned network gradually takes over as training proceeds. The paper also claims the DT component is less exposed than a learned policy to neural-network attacks such as trojan triggers, FGSM, and PGD.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the energy model: each ear-tag sensor starts with 5,000 watts of stored power yet recharges at about 10 milliwatts per square centimeter outdoors, a physically inconsistent pair of numbers on which the reported remaining-energy and runtime results rest.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • DT-PPO offers the early-training benefit of fully transferred PPO even when no pre-trained model exists, which matters for deployments where source policies are unavailable.
  • Because the agent's action space is only three discrete choices on a single threshold $\rho$, the learning cost does not scale with the number of sensors or animals.
  • Raising sensor attack probability lowers monitoring quality but increases remaining energy for all schemes, while DT-PPO's advantage over TL-PPO-FT grows as adversarial-example severity on gateways rises.
  • The uncertainty-aware opinion aggregation filters deceptive data before reward computation, supporting the paper's claim of resilience against false-data injection and non-compliant sensor behavior.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension, not tested in the paper, is to make the DT weight $w$ decay adaptively, for example based on policy entropy or reward stagnation, rather than at the fixed rate 0.0003; the reported 47.5% runtime gain uses only this fixed schedule.
  • The same DT-bootstrap pattern could accelerate other DRL tasks with a cold-start problem whenever a cheap heuristic utility function exists, such as network routing or robot control; the paper confines its claim to smart farm monitoring.
  • If the physically inconsistent energy numbers, 5,000 watts of stored power with milliwatt-scale solar charging, are corrected to realistic battery capacities, the ranking of schemes might change, so the energy-efficiency claims should be re-validated in a consistent energy simulator before hardware deployment.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a multi-agent deep reinforcement learning (DRL) framework for a solar-powered smart farm sensor network, where agents on LoRa gateways select a transmission threshold to balance monitoring quality (MQ) and remaining energy (RE) under cyber and adversarial threats. To accelerate DRL training, the authors introduce decision-theory-guided PPO (DT-PPO), in which a hand-designed utility function is converted into a softmax distribution and combined with the neural network logits during early training. The approach is compared with PPO, transfer-learning-enhanced PPO (full and partial), a pure DT agent, a rule-based adaptive-energy-distance heuristic, fixed-energy, and random baselines using a semi-synthetic dataset derived from the Virginia Tech SmartFarm testbed. The central empirical claim is that DT-PPO outperforms transfer-learning-enhanced DRL, reducing training runtime by 47.5% while achieving comparable monitoring quality and energy efficiency. The manuscript also contributes an uncertainty-aware data aggregation method based on Subjective Logic to filter deceptive data under false data injection and other attacks.

Significance. If the reported results hold after correcting the modeling issues below, the paper would provide a useful engineering result: a decision-theoretic warm-start for PPO that avoids the need for a pre-trained model and remains robust to adversarial examples. The paper's strengths include a clearly described multi-agent architecture, a compact three-action threshold formulation, a concrete attack taxonomy, and a Subjective-Logic-based deceptive-data filter. The LoRa/BLE energy-per-bit comparison in Eqs. (4)-(7) is a nice, physically grounded detail. However, the significance is currently undermined by load-bearing inconsistencies in the monitoring-quality and energy models, a lack of statistical evidence for the headline claims, and a DT utility function that is effectively a hand-tuned proxy of the same reward being optimized. The claimed 47.5% runtime reduction is not derived anywhere in the results section, and the energy model inconsistency is severe enough that the reported remaining-energy curves may describe a different system than the one in the text. The central idea is defensible, but the manuscript requires substantive revision before the claims can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (2), Section 5.1.3] Equation (2) is not a properly normalized monitoring quality measure. The numerator sums over T_current(a_t), X, and d, but the denominator is only X*d. Consequently MQ grows with the number of time steps and is not confined to [0,1] as stated, despite being used directly in the reward r_t = MQ + RE and in all learning curves in Section 7. In addition, the function mq(i,j) has no time index, so the summation over t=1,...,T_current is not well-defined. The formula should either divide by T_current(a_t) as well or remove the sum over t, and the time dependence of mq must be made explicit.
  2. [Section 4.2, Eq. (3), Section 4.4] The energy model is internally inconsistent and load-bearing. Section 4.2 states that each sensor node starts with a 5 kW power reserve, while solar panels charge at about 10 mW/cm2 outdoors and 0.1 mW/cm2 indoors. A 5 kW reserve is a power rating, not an energy capacity, and is physically implausible for an ear-tag sensor; the stated charging rates are many orders of magnitude too small to replenish such a reserve. Section 4.4 then normalizes energy to [0,1] and Section 6.1 initializes HESs at 1.0 and LESs in [0.1,0.2), which does not map to a 5 kW reserve. Moreover, Eq. (3) defines RE as a monotone decrease with no solar-harvesting term, even though the text says charging efficiency varies with weather and shelter. Because the RE reward, the HES/LES classification, and the threshold policy rho all depend on this bookkeeping, the reported remaining-energy and runtime comparisons may describe a system that is not the sustainable solar-powered network claimed in the title and abstract. Please correct the units, specify the energy update equation including any charging term, and reconcile the initialization with the normalized range.
  3. [Section 7, Figs. 4-7, Abstract] The abstract and Section 8.1 state that DT-guided DRL 'proves' superior performance and reduces training runtime by 47.5%, but the results section provides no error bars, confidence intervals, or statistical significance tests. Section 6.1 mentions 100 simulation runs, and Section 7.2 states that data points are derived from average values over the first 50 episodes, but the variance across runs is never reported. Without dispersion measures, the reader cannot assess whether the observed differences between DT-PPO, TL-PPO-FT, and TL-PPO-PT are robust, and the 47.5% runtime reduction is not derived from any reported number in Section 7. Please add error bars or statistical tests and temper the 'prove' language accordingly.
  4. [Eq. (8), Section 5.2.1] The DT utility function in Eq. (8) is constructed from the same monitoring-quality and remaining-energy components that define the DRL reward in Eq. (1), and Section 5.2.1 describes A(s_t,a_t) and E(s_t,a_t) as 'quantified by combining the average values of monitoring quality and remaining energy from previous states with the change in rho.' As written, the DT guidance is therefore a hand-tuned proxy of the reward rather than an independent source of information, which partially explains the observed early-training speedup. This does not invalidate the engineering comparison, but the paper should state this design choice explicitly. In addition, no closed-form expressions for A(s_t,a_t) and E(s_t,a_t) are provided, and the values of w1 and w2 are never reported; without these, the DT component is not fully specified and the experiments are not reproducible.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Section 8] The word 'prove' in the abstract and conclusions is too strong for a simulation study without statistical tests; 'suggest' or 'indicate' would be more appropriate. The 47.5% runtime figure also does not appear in the results section, so either add the supporting calculation or remove the specific number from the abstract.
  2. [Section 5.2.2] The DT influence weight w is initialized to 1 and decays at a rate of 0.0003, but no justification or sensitivity analysis is given for either value. Since the decay schedule directly controls the transition from DT-guided to learned behavior, a brief sensitivity discussion would strengthen the paper.
  3. [Eqs. (9)-(10), Section 5.4] The notation in Eq. (9) uses a nonstandard symbol for the uncertainty-maximized vacuity, and the threshold phi in Eq. (10) is never assigned a value in Section 6.1. Please define phi explicitly and report the chosen value and how it was set.
  4. [References] Reference [32] uses 'et al.' in the author list rather than listing all authors; since other references list all authors, this should be made consistent. The manuscript also does not include a data availability or code availability statement, which would be useful given the semi-synthetic dataset and the reproducibility concerns noted above.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the DT utility intentionally mirrors the reward, and the central runtime/performance claims are empirical comparisons under a common objective.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that DT-guided PPO converges faster and outperforms TL-enhanced PPO. That claim is evaluated by accumulated reward, monitoring quality, remaining energy, and runtime. The DT utility in Eq. (8) is admittedly 'akin to a reward function' (Sec. 5.2.1) and is built from the same MQ/RE terms as Eq. (1); this is an intentional warm-start heuristic rather than a derivation of the result from the result. All schemes optimize the same reward, so the comparison is not forced by construction. The 47.5% runtime improvement is an empirical measurement of training time over 50 episodes, not an algebraic consequence of the definitions. There are no load-bearing self-citations: the cited decision-theory and PPO references are external, and no uniqueness theorem or prior author result is invoked to forbid alternatives. The energy-model inconsistency (a '5 kW power reserve' vs. mW/cm^2 charging rates, and Eq. (3) omitting solar recharge) is a serious physical/correctness concern and could undermine the empirical validity of the energy results, but it is not circularity: the energy model is an input assumption, not a conclusion derived from the target claim. The acknowledged limitation that real-world validation is future work affects external validity, not circular reasoning. Therefore no circular step meeting the quoted-evidence standard is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a simulation whose reward is defined by ground-truth monitoring quality and a residual-energy model; those definitions involve several hand-set thresholds and an energy scale inconsistency, plus an acknowledged but unvalidated ground-truth assumption.

free parameters (6)
  • Utility weights w1, w2 = not reported (w1+w2=1)
    Eq. (8); 'fine-tuned through empirical analysis' (Section 5.2.1), no values or tuning procedure disclosed.
  • Threshold rho initial value and step size tau = tau = 0.05 (example); rho initial not reported
    Section 5.1.2; the action space is defined by adjusting rho, but the initial rho is never specified.
  • DT influence decay rate = 0.0003
    Section 5.2.2; chosen without sensitivity analysis or justification.
  • HES/LES energy threshold L_bl = 0.3 (example)
    Section 4.4; the example value controls the high/low energy classification that determines communication behavior.
  • Deceptive data threshold phi = not reported
    Section 5.4; the projected-distance threshold for discarding data as deceptive is defined in [0,1] but never given a value.
  • PPO batch size and learning rate = batch 500, learning rate 0.0008
    Section 6.3; these are reported for all PPO variants, but the selection process is only described as 'obtaining the optimal performance for each scheme.'
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Ground-truth data is available during training to compute the MQ reward.
    Section 3 states 'we assume its availability during the training phase'; real deployment lacks ground truth, so this is a simulation-only premise.
  • ad hoc to paper The sensor energy model with a 5 kW initial reserve and solar charging around 10 mW/cm2 is realistic enough for conclusions to transfer.
    Section 4.2; the scale inconsistency is never reconciled or validated, yet it directly feeds the RE objective and the HES/LES split.
  • domain assumption Artificially generated compromised data preserves the real distributions of animal attributes.
    Section 6.1; 'Compromised datasets are artificially generated to align with ground truth data,' with no validation that synthetic attacks match real attack statistics.
  • standard math Subjective Logic provides a faithful model of opinion and deception for monitoring data.
    Sections 5.3 and 5.4 rely on Jøsang's Subjective Logic [14] as background; the paper does not prove or calibrate the model for sensor data.
  • domain assumption LoRa and BLE hardware parameters and energy-per-bit ratios from datasheets are accurate for the simulated environment.
    Section 4.2 uses values from SAM R34/R35 and CC2640R2F datasheets; the simplified network model assumes these transfer to a farm with 20 cows and three gateways.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Sustainable Smart Farm Networks: Enhancing Resilience and Efficiency with Decision Theory-Guided Deep Reinforcement Learning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AGW7JCS4

@misc{pith2026250503721,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Sustainable Smart Farm Networks: Enhancing Resilience and Efficiency with Decision Theory-Guided Deep Reinforcement Learning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AGW7JCS4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.03721}
}
read the original abstract

Solar sensor-based monitoring systems have become a crucial agricultural innovation, advancing farm management and animal welfare through integrating sensor technology, Internet-of-Things, and edge and cloud computing. However, the resilience of these systems to cyber-attacks and their adaptability to dynamic and constrained energy supplies remain largely unexplored. To address these challenges, we propose a sustainable smart farm network designed to maintain high-quality animal monitoring under various cyber and adversarial threats, as well as fluctuating energy conditions. Our approach utilizes deep reinforcement learning (DRL) to devise optimal policies that maximize both monitoring effectiveness and energy efficiency. To overcome DRL's inherent challenge of slow convergence, we integrate transfer learning (TL) and decision theory (DT) to accelerate the learning process. By incorporating DT-guided strategies, we optimize monitoring quality and energy sustainability, significantly reducing training time while achieving comparable performance rewards. Our experimental results prove that DT-guided DRL outperforms TL-enhanced DRL models, improving system performance and reducing training runtime by 47.5%.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.03721 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The considered multi-agent DRL environment. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The considered wireless solar sensor-based smart farm network. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Decision-making procedure of a DT-guided DRL agent. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparative performance analysis during training time with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Effect of Varying Attack Severity (𝑃𝐴) on Solar Sensors. reduced incentive for data transmission amidst a higher prevalence of compromised data, thus conserving energy that would otherwise be expended in sending data. In our study, we observe that the performance of ou…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Effect of Varying Adversarial Example Severity ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Effect of Varying Cyber Attack (𝑃𝐴) and Adversarial Example (𝑃𝐴𝐸) Severity. This underscores the efficacy of the DT-PPO model in adjusting to adversarial conditions. Given their foundation in the PPO-based DRL framework, both strategies can formulate similar policies. …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Frederik Aerts, Luca Lanzilao, and Johan Meyers. 2023. Bayesian uncertainty quantification framework for wake model calibration and validation with historical wind farm power data. Wind Energy 26, 8 (2023), 786–802

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Temesgen Seyoum Alemayehu and Jai-Hoon Kim. 2017. Efficient nearest neighbor heuristic TSP algorithms for reducing data acquisition latency of UAV relay WSN. Wireless Personal Communications 95 (2017), 3271–3285

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    Ahmed Abubakar Aliyu and Jinshuo Liu. 2023. Blockchain-Based Smart Farm Security Framework for the Internet of Things. Sensors 23, 18 (2023), 7992

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Kai Arulkumaran, Marc Peter Deisenroth, Miles Brundage, and Anil Anthony Bharath. 2017. Deep Reinforcement Learning: A Brief Survey.IEEE Signal Processing Magazine 34, 6 (2017), 26–38. https://doi.org/10.1109/MSP.2017.2743240 ACM Comput. Surv., Vol. 1, No. 1, Article . Publication date: May 2025. Sustainable Smart Farm Networks: Enhancing Resilience and E...

    arXiv 2017

  5. [5]

    Mustafa Sinasi Ayas, Selen Ayas, and Seddik M. Djouadi. 2022. Projected Gradient Descent Adversarial Attack and Its Defense on a Fault Diagnosis System. In2022 45th International Conference on Telecommunications and Signal Processing (TSP). 36–39. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSP55681.2022.9851334

    work page arXiv 2022

  6. [6]

    Robert Bogue. 2012. Solar-powered sensors: a review of products and applications. Sensor Review 32, 2 (2012), 95–100

    work page 2012

  7. [7]

    Cheol-Joo Chae and Han-Jin Cho. 2018. Enhanced secure device authentication algorithm in P2P-based smart farm system. Peer-to-peer networking and applications 11 (2018), 1230–1239

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    Mark Cutler and Jonathan P How. 2015. Efficient reinforcement learning for robots using informative simulated priors. In 2015 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2605–2612

    work page 2015

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    B R dos Reis, Z Easton, R R White, and D Fuka. 2021. A LoRa sensor network for monitoring pastured livestock location and activity. Translational Animal Science 5, 2 (Jan. 2021), 1–9

    2021

  2. [10]

    Lukas Eichner, Ronald Schneider, and Matthias Baeßler. 2023. Optimal vibration sensor placement for jacket support structures of offshore wind turbines based on value of information analysis. Ocean Engineering 288 (2023), 115407

    2023

  3. [11]

    Pier Francesco Giordano, Leandro Iannacone, and Maria Pina Limongelli. 2023. Value of Seismic Structural Health Monitoring Information for Management of Civil Structures Under Different Prior Knowledge Scenarios. InInternational Conference on Experimental Vibration Analysis fo...

    2023

  4. [12]

    Ian Goodfellow, Jonathon Shlens, and Christian Szegedy. 2015. Explaining and Harnessing Adversarial Examples. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR)

    2015

  5. [13]

    Maanak Gupta, Mahmoud Abdelsalam, Sajad Khorsandroo, and Sudip Mittal. 2020. Security and privacy in smart farming: Challenges and opportunities. IEEE Access 8 (2020), 34564–34584

    2020

  6. [14]

    Audun Jøsang. 2016. Subjective Logic: A Formalism for Reasoning Under Uncertainty (1st ed.). Springer Publishing Company, Incorporated

    2016

  7. [15]

    Katie Kang, Suneel Belkhale, Gregory Kahn, Pieter Abbeel, and Sergey Levine. 2019. Generalization through simulation: Integrating simulated and real data into deep reinforcement learning for vision-based autonomous flight. In 2019 international conference on robotics and autom...

    2019

  8. [16]

    Sangkil Kim, Rushi Vyas, Jo Bito, Kyriaki Niotaki, Ana Collado, Apostolos Georgiadis, and Manos M Tentzeris. 2014. Ambient RF energy-harvesting technologies for self-sustainable standalone wireless sensor platforms. Proc. IEEE 102, 11 (2014), 1649–1666

    2014

  9. [17]

    Siddhant Kumar, Gourav Chowdhary, Venkanna Udutalapally, Debanjan Das, and Saraju P. Mohanty. 2019. gCrop: Internet-of-Leaf-Things (IoLT) for Monitoring of the Growth of Crops in Smart Agriculture. In 2019 IEEE International Symposium on Smart Electronic Systems (iSES) (Former...

    2019

  10. [18]

    Franz Kuntke, Vladimir Romanenko, Sebastian Linsner, Enno Steinbrink, and Christian Reuter. 2022. LoRaWAN security issues and mitigation options by the example of agricultural IoT scenarios.Transactions on Emerging Telecommunications Technologies 33, 5 (2022), e4452

    2022

  11. [19]

    Min Liu, Shijun Xu, and Siyi Sun. 2012. An agent-assisted QoS-based routing algorithm for wireless sensor networks. Journal of Network and Computer Applications 35, 1 (2012), 29–36

    2012

  12. [20]

    Yingqi Liu, Shiqing Ma, Yousra Aafer, Wen-Chuan Lee, Juan Zhai, Weihang Wang, and Xiangyu Zhang. 2018. Trojaning Attack on Neural Networks. In Network and Distributed System Security Symposium (NDSS) . Internet Society

    2018

  13. [21]

    Cian O Mathuna, Terence O’Donnell, Rafael V Martinez-Catala, James Rohan, and Brendan O’Flynn. 2008. Energy scavenging for long-term deployable wireless sensor networks. Talanta 75, 3 (2008), 613–623

    2008

  14. [22]

    Chrysi K Metallidou, Kostas E Psannis, and Eugenia Alexandropoulou Egyptiadou. 2020. Energy efficiency in smart buildings: IoT approaches. IEEE Access 8 (2020), 63679–63699

    2020

  15. [23]

    SAM R34/R35 Low Power LoRa ® Sub-GHz SiP Datasheet

    Microchip 2018. SAM R34/R35 Low Power LoRa ® Sub-GHz SiP Datasheet . Microchip. http://ww1.microchip.com/ downloads/en/DeviceDoc/SAMR34-R35-Low-Power-LoRa-Sub-GHz-SiP-Data-Sheet-DS70005356B.pdf

    2018

  16. [24]

    Leonid Nefedov and Nataliia Fil. 2023. The model of the regional environmental monitoring system organization. In The IEEE 13th International Conference on Dependable Systems, Services and Technologies (DESSERT) . 1–6

    2023

  17. [25]

    Tri Gia Nguyen, Trung V Phan, Dinh Thai Hoang, Tu N Nguyen, and Chakchai So-In. 2021. Federated deep reinforcement learning for traffic monitoring in SDN-based IoT networks. IEEE Trans. Cognitive Communications and Networking 7, 4 (2021), 1048–1065

    2021

  18. [26]

    Thu Nga Nguyen, Trong Binh Nguyen, Trinh Van Chien, and Tien Hoa Nguyen. 2023. Utilizing Deep Reinforcement Learning to Control UAV Movement for Environmental Monitoring. International Journal of Electrical and Electronic Engineering & Telecommunications 12, 5 (2023), 317–325

    2023

  19. [27]

    D Warner North. 1968. A Tutorial Introduction to Decision Theory. IEEE Trans. Systems Science and Cybernetics 4, 3 (1968), 200–210

    1968

  20. [28]

    Błażej Osiński, Adam Jakubowski, Paweł Zięcina, Piotr Miłoś, Christopher Galias, Silviu Homoceanu, and Henryk Michalewski. 2020. Simulation-based reinforcement learning for real-world autonomous driving. In 2020 IEEE interna- tional conference on robotics and automation (ICRA)...

    2020

  21. [29]

    Giovanni Parmigiani and Lurdes Inoue. 2009. Decision theory: Principles and approaches . John Wiley & Sons. ACM Comput. Surv., Vol. 1, No. 1, Article . Publication date: May 2025. 22 Dian Chen, Zelin Wan, Dong Sam Ha, and Jin-Hee Cho

    2009

  22. [30]

    Martin Peterson. 2017. An Introduction to Decision Theory . Cambridge University Press

    2017

  23. [31]

    Yakub Kayode Saheed and Micheal Olaolu Arowolo. 2021. Efficient Cyber Attack Detection on the Internet of Medical Things-Smart Environment Based on Deep Recurrent Neural Network and Machine Learning Algorithms. IEEE Access 9 (2021), 161546–161554. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCES...

    2021

  24. [32]

    John Schulman, et al. 2017. Proximal policy optimization algorithms. arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.06347 (2017)

    2017 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Sina Sontowski, Maanak Gupta, Sai Sree Laya Chukkapalli, Mahmoud Abdelsalam, Sudip Mittal, Anupam Joshi, and Ravi Sandhu. 2020. Cyber Attacks on Smart Farming Infrastructure. In 2020 IEEE 6th International Conference on Collaboration and Internet Computing (CIC) . 135–143. htt...

    2020

  26. [34]

    Salman Md Sultan, Muhammad Waleed, Jae-Young Pyun, and Tai-Won Um. 2021. Energy conservation for Internet of Things tracking applications using deep reinforcement learning. Sensors 21, 9 (2021), 3261

    2021

  27. [35]

    CC2640R2F SimpleLink ™ Bluetooth® 5.1 Low Energy Wireless MCU

    Texas Instruments 2016. CC2640R2F SimpleLink ™ Bluetooth® 5.1 Low Energy Wireless MCU . Texas Instruments. https://www.ti.com/product/CC2640R2F Rev. C

    2016

  28. [36]

    Anusha Vangala, Anil Kumar Sutrala, Ashok Kumar Das, and Minho Jo. 2021. Smart contract-based blockchain- envisioned authentication scheme for smart farming. IEEE Internet of Things Journal 8, 13 (2021), 10792–10806

    2021

  29. [37]

    Xiong Wang, Linghe Kong, Zucheng Wu, Long Cheng, Chenren Xu, and Guihai Chen. 2020. SLoRa: Towards secure LoRa communications with fine-grained physical layer features. In Proceedings of the 18th Conference on Embedded Networked Sensor Systems. 258–270

    2020

  30. [38]

    Abbas Yazdinejad, Behrouz Zolfaghari, Amin Azmoodeh, Ali Dehghantanha, Hadis Karimipour, Evan Fraser, Arthur G Green, Conor Russell, and Emily Duncan. 2021. A review on security of smart farming and precision agriculture: Security aspects, attacks, threats and countermeasures....

    2021

  31. [39]

    Won Joon Yun, Soohyun Park, Joongheon Kim, MyungJae Shin, Soyi Jung, David A Mohaisen, and Jae-Hyun Kim

  32. [40]

    Jain, and Jiayu Zhou

    Zhuangdi Zhu, Kaixiang Lin, Anil K. Jain, and Jiayu Zhou. 2023. Transfer Learning in Deep Reinforcement Learning: A Survey. IEEE Trans. Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 45, 11 (2023), 13344–13362. ACM Comput. Surv., Vol. 1, No. 1, Article . Publication date: May 2025

    2023

  33. [2022]

    IEEE Trans

    Cooperative multiagent deep reinforcement learning for reliable surveillance via autonomous multi-UAV control. IEEE Trans. Industrial Informatics 18, 10 (2022), 7086–7096

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.