Received May 30, 2021, accepted July 26, 2021, date of publication August 6, 2021, date of current version

August 16, 2021.

Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3103041

Artificial Intelligence for Enhanced Mobility and

5G Connectivity in UAV-Based Critical Missions
SILVIA LINS 1,2 , KLEBER VIEIRA CARDOSO 3 , CRISTIANO BONATO BOTH 4 ,
LUCIANO MENDES 5 , JOSÉ F. DE REZENDE 6 , ANTONIO SILVEIRA1 , NEIVA LINDER2,7 ,
AND ALDEBARO KLAUTAU 1 , (Senior Member, IEEE)
1 LASSE-5G and IoT Research Group, Federal University of Pará (UFPA), Belem 66075-110, Brazil
2 Ericsson Research Brazil, Indaiatuba 13337-300, Brazil
3 Instituto de Informática (INF), Universidade Federal de Goiás (UFG), Goiania 74690-900, Brazil
4 Applied Computing Graduate Program, University of Vale do Rio dos Sinos (UNISINOS), São Leopoldo 93022-750, Brazil
5 National Institute of Telecommunications (Inatel), Santa Rita do Sapucai 37540-000, Brazil
6 Laboratory for Modeling, Analysis and Development of Networks and Computer Systems (LAND), Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ),

Rio de Janeiro 21941-901, Brazil

7 Ericsson Research, 164 80 Stockholm, Sweden

Corresponding author: Silvia Lins (silvia.lins@ericsson.com)

This work was supported in part by Brazilian Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (MCTIC)/Brazilian Internet Steering
Committee (CGI.br)/São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) through the Project entitled Slicing Future Internet Infrastructures (SFI2 )
under Grant 2018/23097-3, and in part by Brazilian National Council for Research and Development (CNPq).

ABSTRACT In the context of Fifth Generation mobile networks (5G), Search and Rescue (SAR) missions
using Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) can benefit from a dynamic, intelligent, and autonomous placement
of both Network Functions (NFs) and Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems to quickly adapt in minimal
human intervention scenarios. This article examines current 5G architectures and timely standardization
efforts within this context. The contribution of this work is to identify associated 5G components and
propose AI modules that enable efficient UAV-based SAR missions: the System Intelligence (SI) and Edge
Intelligence (EI) concepts. SI is conceived as the entity responsible for defining and orchestrating the
placement and processing tasks of NFs and AI systems, while EI is responsible for the optimization of
AI-based end-user applications. The article also presents an open-source virtualized testbed that enables a
concrete example of SI and EI roles in a SAR mission based on object detection with Deep Neural Networks
(DNNs). In this proof-of-concept, the DNN layers are partitioned and the tradeoffs between communication
and computational costs are highlighted. For instance, the results indicate that the latency can severely
degrade the UAV trajectory and different DNN partitioning options can reduce the required bit rate to transmit
DNN scores by more than three times.

INDEX TERMS Artificial Intelligence (AI), communication networks, standardization, mobile communi-
cation, mobile computing.

I. INTRODUCTION can establish a temporary communication infrastructure in

Search and Rescue (SAR) operations are special critical mis-
sions targeting the location and retrieval of persons in dis-
tress [1]. These operations can occur in different places, such
as cities, caves, water, mountains, war zones, etc. Moreover,
SARs are usually time and budget-consuming, especially in
remote areas. In these scenarios, Unmanned Aerial Vehicles
(UAVs) can perform the SAR mission with reduced human
intervention, organizing themselves to exchange and send
information about the remote area while detecting individu-
als’ presence via computational vision and scanning different
spectrum bands or detecting sound waves. Moreover, UAVs
The associate editor coordinating the review of this manuscript and
approving it for publication was Chao Wang . the field as open issues. Moreover, standardization efforts
the area by serving as Base Stations (BSs), providing cov-
erage for personnel, people in danger, sensors, and other
equipment used in the SAR activities.
Some technological challenges need to be overcome for
improved UAV-based missions since current regular com-
munication networks do not support the demands of highly
dynamic SAR scenarios. In this sense, network flexibil-
ity is under intense investigation. For instance, Artificial
Intelligence (AI) is incorporated in network slicing [2] and
assessed for orchestration in Internet of Things (IoT) sce-
narios [3]. A good overview of the opportunities for AI
adoption in virtualized networks is provided in [4], high-
lighting the lack of datasets and experimental research in

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. For more information, see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
111792 VOLUME 9, 2021
S. Lins et al.: AI for Enhanced Mobility and 5G Connectivity in UAV-Based Critical Missions
[5], [6] towards AI-powered communication networks need
to be taken into account for the interplay of such functions,
especially in the huge diversity of SAR scenarios. The extra
flexibility provided by virtualized 5th Generation mobile net-
works (5G) and UAVs, together with the adoption of stan-
dardized AI components, could grant the extra degrees of
freedom required for efficient SAR missions under-explored
in the literature. It could benefit computer vision tasks,
which are promising applications in SAR. Regarding UAV-
based computer vision, recent advances included adopting
computationally-heavy Deep Neural Network (DNN) mod-
els, imposing high throughput between edge and cloud net-
works [7]. However, it is particularly challenging in disaster
scenarios, where the network infrastructure is affected and
often does not allow continuous communication between var-
ious SAR teams. The network conditions could be extremely
dynamic in SAR, as well as the requirements for the AI
application itself, with the mission goals changing over time.
Therefore, network functions can be placed on different
devices and the execution of key algorithms can be split
among UAVs, the network edge, and the cloud to tradeoff
computing and communication. Because large DNNs are
required in challenging SAR missions, this article also pro-
motes the partitioning of DNN layers and their execution
both at the UAV and the edge equipment whenever conve-
nient. This granularity level of distributed AI allows improved
energy efficiency, latency reduction, and increased autonomy
of UAVs.
In summary, this article presents two main contributions
aiming at mitigating connectivity and mobility issues in
dynamic critical missions over disaster scenarios:
• Alignment of concepts based on current standards to
dynamically optimize the AI applications and network
connectivity. The 5G components that can contribute
in this context are mapped, as well as their existing
constraints. Particular emphasis is placed on the AI
module that enables the system to overcome critical
limitations regarding connectivity. This module adapts
the network infrastructure, allowing a flexible operation
in missions with a highly unpredictable scenario such
as SAR. Another AI module concerns the optimization
of the application, e.g., placing partitioned DNNs in
distinct equipment.
• We identify how the 5G core and edge computing sys-
tems can be affected by critical missions’ challeng-
ing conditions and how the current standards can be
put together to mitigate the issues associated with the
dynamic network conditions and AI goals.
To validate the proposed alignment, we present results of
DNN-based object detection in three distinct SAR scenarios
obtained with an open-source testbed. The experiments indi-
cate, for instance, how extra latency or packet loss can impair
the drone trajectory and the accuracy of object detection in
SAR scenarios. For example, an extra latency of some tens
of milliseconds due to network impairments can severely
degrade the UAV trajectory. Another obtained result is that
VOLUME 9, 2021
the required bit rate to transmit DNN scores can be reduced
by a factor larger than three by choosing the layer to perform
the DNN partitioning.
This article is structured as follows. Section II presents the
support needed by SAR applications and the possibilities for
using AI. In Section III, the pertinent standardization efforts
are reviewed and complemented by discussing the specific
issues related to mobility and connectivity in UAV-based
SAR. Section IV describes the testbed and experiments using
three distinct SAR scenarios. Conclusions and open issues are
discussed in Section V.
II. AI AND 5G FOR UAV CRITICAL MISSIONS
The versatility, fast response time, and capacity to support
other services are some of the features that make UAV inter-
esting for search and rescue activities. Therefore, UAVs are
attracting the attention from academic research, government,
and industry. Numerous studies discuss computing paradigms
(e.g., edge computing), communication technologies, and AI
using UAVs [8]. We adopt SAR as the critical mission of
interest, mobile 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP)
5G networks, and object detection as the main computer
vision application to make the discussion concrete. There are
other useful AI-related algorithms for SAR, such as planning
and reasoning algorithms. However, object detection with
DNN is a good use case to identify the main challenges
of UAV-enabled AI and its future directions. The discussed
technologies enable not only SAR but related use cases
like controlled UAV interception and target tracking. In the
following paragraphs we discuss the main critical mission
requirements, focusing on SAR use cases and how AI can
optimize connectivity and computational vision applications.
A. CRITICAL MISSION REQUIREMENTS AND GOALS
One of the essential applications of UAVs in SAR missions is
to provide a quick evaluation of the situation in the search and
rescue areas. While human-crewed and helicopters require a
long time before the mission deployment, UAVs can almost
immediately be put into action [9]. It is fundamental to
highlight that the use of AI to eliminate human intervention
as much as possible adds an extra stage in SAR missions.
This new stage involves processing the collected information
and making real-time decisions during the search stage to
facilitate the rescue. This new stage is referred to as the
diagnostic stage, which turns SAR into Search, Diagnostic,
and Rescue (SDAR) operations in this article.
Some critical missions, especially SDAR activities, are
performed in remote areas or places where the telecommuni-
cation infrastructure is inoperative or severely damaged due
to disasters (flood, landslide, earthquake, volcano eruption,
tsunami, etc.). In either case, a long-range network is essential
to provide connectivity in the rescue area. It offers extreme
reach for UAV, voice communication for the rescuers and
ransomed ones, and control for autonomous machines to
diagnose the SDAR operation. Moreover, this network can
be used as a backhaul for other local networks, increasing the
111793
 S. Lins et al.: AI for Enhanced Mobility and 5G Connectivity in UAV-Based Critical Missions
accessibility for a broad set of devices. Other relevant tasks
during SDAR activities could be monitoring the wireless
channel conditions and adapting the communication system
accordingly. In this case, BS can perform an initial spectrum
sensing, while the spectrum awareness can be improved as
other devices are deployed in the searching area [10]. 3GPP
standardized bands are preferable, but other vacant bands,
such as UHF or VHF, can also be used.
Several radio technologies can be used to connect the
equipment in the SDAR scene to the core network [11].
For example, satellite networks are a promising solution,
especially after introducing the non-3GPP Application Pro-
gramming Interface (API) in Release 15. Satellite links are
interesting for ubiquitous networks in remote areas, but
SDAR services must be resilient, and, in most cases, they are
latency-sensitive. Therefore, a terrestrial Radio Access Net-
work (RAN) is essential to cover all requirements imposed
by the SDAR applications. In this sense, the 5G radio inter-
face is an attractive solution because it is very flexible and
enables enhanced Mobile Broadband (eMBB) for video and
Ultra-Reliable Low Latency (URLL) for UAVs command and
control. An example is the radio support required for UAV’s
control and communication (coverage, capacity, and latency).
Besides, initiatives exist on the Physical Layer (PHY) design
to make it able to support long-range links with a high
capacity [12]. The 5G-RANGE, One5G, and 5G Rural First
projects propose solutions to enhance coverage.
UAVs have increasing importance in providing connectiv-
ity within SDAR and similar scenarios. These devices can
be used as dummy repeaters, just amplifying the uplink and
downlink signals or being equipped with BS capabilities [11].
In the last case, the ground BS can be used as a backhaul
for the flying BS, and it additionally can adopt features
of the Integrated Access Backhaul (IAB). The ground BS
can exploit a vacant non-3GPP channel, allowing the flying
BS to provide conventional devices’ connectivity under the
licensed channels. The ground BS is responsible for coordi-
nating the frequency allocation for the flying BS, reducing
the interference among them, and protecting the incumbents
when non-3GPP bands are used. Moreover, multiple antennas
can be used in both terrestrial stations and UAVs, enabling
Multiple Input Multiple Output (MIMO) techniques such as
beamforming. The transmitter directs the signal to improve
coverage and mitigate interference.
Assuming that the long-range network provides the ter-
restrial communication infrastructure and the UAVs can act
as flying BSs, several other challenges must be overcome to
provide the SDAR services within the disaster area. The next
paragraphs discuss how AI can mitigate some of these issues.
B. AI FOR APPLICATIONS AND NETWORK OPTIMIZATION
This article envisions AI being used both as an end-user
application and to optimize the communication network.
We distinguish these two by calling System Intelligence (SI)
the latter case. Moreover, because we discuss critical mis-
sions, we assume that most AI processing is performed at the
111794
network edge, calling Edge Intelligence (EI) the AI adopted
in applications such as object detection.
The deployment of SI in 5G and Beyond 5G (B5G) net-
works must take into account they are composed of basically
three essential parts: the RAN, the Edge Network (EN),
and the Core Network (CN). These three parts of the 5G
network have a well-defined role in attending services net-
work requirements. Therefore, these three parts need to play
together to adapt dynamically to the network changes, for
example, a critical mission scenario where the network infras-
tructure can be partial or totally inoperable due to a natural
disaster.
We argue that AI should be adopted to configure these
parts integrated with UAVs. Essentially, AI should consider
five stages, as defined by the European Telecommunications
Standards Institute (ETSI), to increase the network’s adapt-
ability: sense, perceive, learn, adapt and act. The Sense stage
is when the system collects the monitoring data from the
infrastructure. After that, we should understand how this data
relates to each other in the Perceive stage. During Learn
stage, we should look for data patterns and their relationship.
Understanding the behavior of the network and adapting it
according to the user requirements is performed during the
Adapt stage. Finally, we have the Act stage for applying the
necessary changes to the network. In the discussed context, all
these stages aim at reducing human intervention in an SDAR
application.
Concerning EI applied to the target scenarios, it must be
distributed and continuously adapted to the mission. One rea-
son is that an SDAR mission evolves, as indicated in Figure 1,
and EI will deal with distinct goals. DNNs used during the
search stage may differ considerably from those adopted for
diagnostic and rescue, regarding, e.g., object detection [13].
Different DNNs could be loaded at UAVs at the cost of
increased memory usage. Alternatively, the edge can transmit
the required DNNs on-the-fly, according to the mission stage,
FIGURE 1. SDAR mission adaptation over time.
VOLUME 9, 2021
S. Lins et al.: AI for Enhanced Mobility and 5G Connectivity in UAV-Based Critical Missions
FIGURE 2. SDAR Edge Intelligence (EI) is used for DNN partitioning in computer vision tasks (which could also be path
planning, trajectory optimization tasks, etc.) and System Intelligence (SI) orchestrating AI-based network optimization.
environment, etc., composing a distributed and flexible AI
system.
AI can be distributed with distinct levels of granularity. For
instance, a large DNN can be partitioned and some layers
executed at a specific UAV, which then transmits the scores
(outputs of activation functions) [14] to the application layer,
as shown in Figure 2. These scores are processed at the edge
and core network, or even in other UAVs or cloud networks,
obtaining the final result. This work conceives the SI concept
as the entity responsible for defining and orchestrating the
placement and processing tasks of network functions and
neural networks w.r.t. to the communication network opti-
mization. Moreover, EI is responsible for the optimization of
AI-based end-user applications (here represented by object
detection tasks). In Figure 2, we assume that EI was respon-
sible for defining the partitioning of DNNs used, e.g., UAV-
based object detection tasks among the access network and
UAV nodes. Neural network partitioning is under investi-
gation in academia [15]–[17], and in Section IV, this work
also provides some results and insights regarding per-layer
partitioning.
Putting together both EI and SI is challenging, and the
solution requires adequate standards. The next section dis-
cusses the interplay of EI and SI in the light of current
standardization efforts.
III. STANDARDIZED DEPLOYMENT OF EI AND SI
EI requires two basic systems: (i) edge computing and
(ii) network. Assuming that these systems are based on the
standards, the edge computing system corresponds to the
Multi-access Edge Computing (MEC) [5] from ETSI while
the network system concerns the 3GPP 5G, composed of
the Next-Generation Radio Access Network (NG-RAN) and
the 5G Core (5GC) built as a Service-Based Architecture
(SBA) [6]. Considering 5G standards already define a dis-
aggregated RAN, the term virtual RAN (vRAN) will be
used throughout the article. This terminology emphasizes
that both, RAN and core, can be implemented as Virtual
VOLUME 9, 2021
Network Functions (VNFs) that must be appropriately placed
and chained to accomplish their tasks [18]. MEC is aligned
with the SBA principles and it was designed to be tightly inte-
grated with 5GC [5]. Some of the essential MEC services that
depend on this integration are: Radio Network Information
API, Location API, User Equipment (UE) Identity API, and
Bandwidth Management API.
Figure 3 illustrates how the ETSI MEC system is integrated
into a 5G network system [5] and how these systems offer
the necessary support to EI. The CN, RAN, and UE roles can
be played partially or entirely by UAVs. The MEC system is
closely tied to 5GC through at least two components: (i) User
Plane Function (UPF) and (ii) Network Application Function
(NAF) or U/Na. UPF is mainly related to the transport of the
user data performed through the reference point N6. NAF is
a service-based interface that establishes the communication
of the MEC system with the 5GC SBA. In practice, the MEC
system requires other reference points to interact appropri-
ately with 5GC, such as the Network Repository Function
(NRF), allowing the MEC system to discover other VNFs
and their available services. The reference points N1, N2,
and N3 are critical for keeping a 5G system operational,
so Figure 3 also illustrates how UEs and vRAN are dependent
on 5GC.
In SDAR scenarios, 5GC, vRAN, and MEC must be
improved to be operational under the eventual harsh con-
ditions. Part of the solution can be obtained from 3GPP
specifications, initially, in the form of Non-Public Network
(NPN), in which vRAN and, most importantly, 5GC may
operate independently, such as a Standalone NPN (SNPN),
or as a Public Network Integrated NPN (PNI-NPN). More-
over, Network Slicing (NS) can create fully virtual networks,
in which each virtual network may include an isolated Access
Network (AN) and CN. Self-Organizing Network (SON) in
RAN and Network Data Analytics Function (NWDAF) in
the core already provides some autonomous capability to
the network, offering limited functionalities regarding self-
configuration, self-optimization, and self-healing.
111795
 S. Lins et al.: AI for Enhanced Mobility and 5G Connectivity in UAV-Based Critical Missions

FIGURE 3. A standardized approach for supporting edge intelligence based on the integration of 3GPP 5G system (RAN
and core) and ETSI MEC system.

FIGURE 4. SDAR scenarios with failure conditions illustrating the need for SI.

The configuration of a network as SNPN, PNI-NPN, or a
traditional Public Land Mobile Network (PLMN) is not
dynamic as demanded by SDAR scenarios. NS requires an
underlying 5GC and vRAN to manage the virtual instances.
Additionally, the 3GPP standard does not describe how to
optimize 5GC to couple with each scenario’s requirements.
5GC SBA has several functions that may not be useful for the
SDAR applications and could be disabled to save resources,
such as memory, processing, and the UAVs battery. Moreover,
MEC can be part of an NPN (of any type) or a PLMN, but it
suffers from the same limitations of 5GC SBA: lack of adapt-
ability and optimization. Finally, SON and NWDAF were
not designed for keeping the network operating in extreme
scenarios, such as a network partitioning in which AN and
CN cannot reach each other.
Given a large number of possible SDAR scenarios, the hos-
tile conditions, and the demand for robustness, it is essential
to adopt an approach based on AI/Machine Learning (ML).
Some situations and the type of adaptability and optimization
required are illustrated in Figure 4, which depicts the SI place-
ment. If the infrastructure is fully operational, SI identifies
that the 5GC, vRAN, and MEC can operate normally, and the
focus becomes the resource optimization. On the other hand,
if the infrastructure suffers damages, such as partitioning
of AN or communication with AN is lost, SI activates the
necessary VNFs to maintain the network operation and the
support needed for EI to continue working.
Significant challenges that SI must deal with are the
potential fluctuations in the quality of the communications
between the network components, including AN (eventually,
with multiple elements), CN, and UEs. In extreme situa-
tions, the connections may be unavailable between compo-
nents. Moreover, SI must be aware of the available resources,
mainly UAVs and their inner resources (e.g., battery, CPU,
storage), and other components in AN and CN. For instance,
when UAVs carry radios and are used to extend the network
reach, their trajectories must reflect the SDAR site conditions
and be optimized regarding the channel capacity, battery
autonomy, etc. Planning the trajectories of these UAVs is
the responsibility of the SI module. At the same time, EI is
responsible for the trajectories of UAVs that behave as UEs
and aim at video recording and transmission.
Another significant challenge is that SI has to operate
in several time-scales (from milliseconds to hours). One
extreme example is resource allocation and scheduling at
PHY. The contrasting requirements of the SDAR applica-
tions require flexible use of the communication resources,
i.e., time, frequency, power, and computational capacity.

111796 VOLUME 9, 2021

S. Lins et al.: AI for Enhanced Mobility and 5G Connectivity in UAV-Based Critical Missions
In SDAR, SI must support EI to effectively use AI to optimize
PHY parameters such as modulation order, coding rate, and
MIMO scheme, leading to the best Quality of Service (QoS)
and coverage for each specific channel condition [19]. More-
over, in tasks other than PHY optimization, the symbiotic use
of SI and EI provides the necessary tools to deploy a reliable
AI-based infrastructure for SDAR missions.
IV. TESTBED FOR EI AND SI IN UAV-BASED SDAR
This section describes the deployed testbed for running the
experiments and discusses results that illustrate the method-
ology presented in Section III. The testbed1 uses the Ope-
nAirInterface (OAI) software to implement a vRAN [20],
and the free5GC software is adopted as a Non-Standalone
5G core architecture. Both OAI and free5GC are container-
ized with Docker, and their deployment is automated with
Kubernetes. The following collection of tools represents EI
for object detection (e.g., cars or people in flooded areas):
OpenCV, Tensorflow, Qualcomm’s AI Model Efficiency
Toolkit (AIMET), and PyTorch. Moreover, Docker images,
Helm applications, and scripts help to replicate the testbed
scenarios.
FIGURE 5. Three scenarios using the implemented testbed for evaluating
EI and SI in UAV-Based SDAR.
Three testbed configurations were designed to mimic
SDAR scenarios similar to the ones presented in the previous
section, as illustrated in Figure 5. A distinct placement of
VNFs was adopted in each scenario and the partitioning of an
EI computational vision application. The testbed hardware is
composed of Intel Core i5-7500 CPU@3.4 GHz processors,
running Ubuntu 18.04 LTS as the operating system. These
computers host four entities: CN, 5G base-station (gNB) rep-
resenting AN, and two distinct categories of UAVs: UAV Base
Station (UAV-BS) and UAV User Equipment (UAV-UE). The
testbed employs Mininet to emulate routers and switches in
the transport network that composes the backhaul connect-
ing AN and CN. Moreover, Mininet was useful to impose
1 https://github.com/lasseufpa/connected-ai-testbed, accessed in 03/21/
2021.
VOLUME 9, 2021
different latency values during the experiments. UAV-BS is
capable of executing not only EI and MEC but also vRAN and
5GC functions. The automated orchestration provided by a
Kubernetes cluster facilitates placing CN and gNB containers
according to the scenario. UAV-UE can transmit the video
to be used for DNN-based object detection or implement
itself as part of a partitioned DNN. The control model and
trajectory of UAVs are implemented in Matlab. Additionally,
planning the trajectories of UAV-BS and UAV-UE are consid-
ered as part of the SI.
VNFs move towards the UAVs from Scenario 1 to 3,
as illustrated in Figure 5. Scenario 1 represents a situation
in which the terrestrial infrastructure is functional, and UAV
transmits video captured at the rescue site. Both the EI com-
putational vision application and the UAV-UE trajectory plan-
ning are computed at gNB or CN. For minimizing latency,
the ideal situation is to have all EI functions performed at
the edge, but Scenario 1 incorporates the situation in which
limited hardware is available at the edge and some process-
ing is offloaded to the cloud. In the experiments, it was
assumed that UAV-UE in Scenario 1 is farther from gNB than
UAV-UEs in Scenarios 2 and 3 are from UAV-BS. Therefore,
the wireless channel in Scenario 1 is assumed to be worse
than in the other scenarios. In this context, SI depends on AI
to improve the physical layer for establishing a more extended
but still usable wireless link. Scenario 2 represents a situation
where the connection to CN is faulty, and SI enabled 5GC
in gNB. Moreover, in this scenario, a UAV-BS is responsible
for extending AN reach and providing connectivity and EI
functions to the UAV-UEs. In Scenario 3, the gNB is non-
operational, and SI has orchestrated VNFs to execute 5GC in
UAV-BS.
In the following, two categories of experiments performed
in the testbed are described. The experiments aim at high-
lighting degrees of freedom when designing SI and EI for
SDAR in the evolution of 5G. When assessing a system
for supporting SDAR, the figure of merit can be the task
completion or similar high-level description of success. For
simplicity and concreteness, the experiments considered as
primary tasks of SI: (i) the placement of VNFs that distin-
guishes the three scenarios in Figure 5 and (ii) trajectory
guidance.
Figure 6a presents the average CPU and RAM usage in
UAV-UE, in Scenario 1, and UAV-BS, in Scenarios 2 and
3. For CPU usage, the vertical line on top of each bar indi-
cates the standard deviation among the measurements, which
are virtually zero for RAM usage. The insight promoted by
Figure 6a is the tradeoff between the flexibility of having
UAVs executing a large number of VNFs and their autonomy.
As depicted in this figure, the CPU and RAM usage increase
with the number of VNFs. This behavior leads to an increase
in power consumption and a reduction of the UAV’s auton-
omy. Therefore, in an SDAR mission with several UAVs, SI
would have to take this tradeoff into account and deploy or
enable/disable VNFs on demand according to the mission
goal.
111797
 S. Lins et al.: AI for Enhanced Mobility and 5G Connectivity in UAV-Based Critical Missions
FIGURE 6. Results for the three scenarios in Figure 5.
Networked UAV control is a good use case to stress SI,
mainly when UAV provides VNFs to the communication
network. It was assumed that algorithms such as closed-loop
stability control to deal with wind gusts, for instance, are
executed on UAV. The trajectory guidance is the SI system’s
responsibility and performed at CN, gNB, and UAV-BS for
Scenarios 1 to 3, respectively. Figure 6b presents the UAV-UE
trajectories that were simulated using parameters estimated
from networks corresponding to the three adopted scenarios.
The goal of Figure 6b is to illustrate the interplay among the
placement of VNFs and network conditions with the UAV
trajectory control.
The parameters of the UAV-UE linear model with time
delay were obtained using a least-squares estimator on
the data measured by flying a Parrot AR.Drone 2.0.
The estimated model and autopilot were then simulated
in Matlab to obtain the trajectories. The autopilot com-
prises six Proportional-Integral-Derivative (PID) controllers
as discrete-time dynamic systems with a sampling interval
of 65 ms. The testbed was used to estimate the average latency
and jitter experienced by the Command and Control (C2) traf-
fic for Scenarios 1 to 3. The latency values were 35.87, 21.20,
and 18.90 ms, while the jitters were 11.6, 1.9, and 2.1 µs,
for Scenarios 1 to 3, respectively. The downlink C2 traffic
was also impaired by a packet loss probability Pl , which was
used to investigate the effects of losing packets containing
controller commands in the downlink. The adopted values
were Pl = 0.3, 0.2 and 0.1, for Scenarios 1 to 3, respectively.
The uplink, in which the UAV transmits its position, was
considered error-free.
The values of Pl , together with the estimated latency and
jitter, were used in the Matlab simulations to lead to trajecto-
ries depicted in Figure 6b. Moreover, the figure shows the tra-
jectory corresponding to ideal network conditions, in which
UAV reaches the altitude of 5 m and completes a square
111798
trajectory. As expected, the most prominent deviations from
the ideal trajectory are observed in Scenario 1. In this case,
UAV can deviate by more than 10 m from the ideal trajectory,
which could jeopardize its mission, given the uncertainties
surrounding SDAR sites.
Additional experiments were conducted assuming an
EI consisting of object detection using DNN. An SSD-
VGG16 DNN [14] was trained to detect four classes: per-
son, car, bicycle, and motorcycle. During the training and
test stages, the DNN operates on frames of videos recorded
in a parking lot at the Federal University of Pará. The
trained DNN had 40 layers and 24.15 × 106 parameters
(weights), each represented initially with 32 bits. To opti-
mize its dynamic deployment during the SDAR mission,
the DNN was compressed with AIMET and had its origi-
nal size of 96 MB reduced to 12 MB by quantizing each
parameter with 4 bits. Scenario 2 was employed in the experi-
ments discussed hereafter. The DNN was partitioned between
UAV-BS and UAV-UE. The UAV-UE executed DNN layers
from the first one up to a chosen max-pooling layer [14], and
all remaining layers were computed at the UAV-BS. The three
max-pooling we used for partitioning, correspond to the 3rd,
6th, and 10th among all 40 DNN layers. For simplicity, these
partitioning options will be called ‘‘Max pool.’’ 1, 2, and 3,
respectively. For instance, ‘‘Max. pool. 1’’ corresponds to SI
placing the execution of the first 3 layers at UAV-UE and the
other 37 layers at UAV-BS.
The max-pooling reduces the dimension of its input tensor
and is an appropriate layer to perform partitioning: fewer
scores need to be transmitted using the max-pooling layer out-
put than its input. The two parts of the partitioned DNN were
executed on Jetson Nano boards, which weigh 245 grams
each. Figure 7a (left y-axis) shows the bit rate corresponding
to quantizing with four bits and transmitting through the
wireless channel each score of the last DNN layer placed
VOLUME 9, 2021
S. Lins et al.: AI for Enhanced Mobility and 5G Connectivity in UAV-Based Critical Missions
FIGURE 7. Results with neural network partitioned in three distinct max pooling layers between UAV-UE and UAV-BS.
at UAV-UE. We can see on the right y-axis of Figure 7a
the required Multiply-and-Accumulate (MAC) operations for
executing the layers of the partitioned DNN that SI placed at
UAV-UE. The total number of MACs is proportional to the
number of layers executed in UAV-UE (i.e., 3, 6, or 10). For
the sake of comparison, the numbers corresponding to the
streaming of uncompressed video (no DNN in UAV-UE) are
also indicated. This video has a resolution of 300 × 300 pixels
with three color channels, which corresponds to a version of
the original video, subsampled to the resolution adopted for
the DNN input.
Figure 7b indicates how the communication network can
impair EI. Channel errors were modeled by zeroing the
transmitted scores according to a probability Pe . For each
adopted partitioning, the quantized scores are transmitted via
this erasure channel with Pe = 0.1, 0.2, . . . , 0.8, and the
object detection is concluded at UAV-BS. The mean average
precision (mAP) [14] is computed for the four mentioned
classes using a test video with 30 Frames per Second (FPS)
and lasting 30 seconds (900 images). For all tested DNN
partitioning schemes, a severely impaired communication
link may eliminate the chance of detecting the target object
in an SDAR mission.
V. OPEN ISSUES AND CONCLUSION
In this article, the benefits and challenges of AI in critical
missions based on UAVs in 5G/B5G networks were dis-
cussed. Clearly, in UAV-enabled communication networks,
there is a tradeoff between UAV performing the computation
locally (reducing the communication bandwidth demand)
versus offloading the information to be processed elsewhere
(i.e., at the network edge or core). This tradeoff directly
impacts the optimization of energy consumption, mission
planning, time for mission completion, etc. Moreover, this
optimization is highly dependent on the technologies for both
computing and communication. Therefore, throughout a large
VOLUME 9, 2021
SDAR mission, a SI module must take and optimize the
decisions, establishing connectivity, and trading computing
and communication resources.
Considering the computation-communication tradeoffs,
another important enabler of UAV-based SDAR missions is
an efficient EI system. In this sense, this work highlighted
the additional flexibility requirements and issues related to
partitioning neural networks among distinct devices. Using
the implemented testbed, it examined the consequences of
different DNN partitioning strategies, evaluating their effects
on CPU and RAM usage, scores transmission bit rate, and
object detection accuracy. DNNs are only one example of the
AI models that will dynamically float across the communica-
tion network or be enabled/disabled to accomplish goals that
evolve, especially w.r.t. 5G/B5G networks’ ambitious goals.
While significant effort has been made towards using AI
in 5G networks, the whole design assumes that the basic
transport infrastructure is fixed. The communication between
CN and AN is always available. These assumptions may
not hold true in SDAR scenarios, leading to communication
collapse and mission failure. SDAR missions will benefit
from AI applied to system management and communica-
tion tasks as a whole. This management includes quick and
dynamic adaptation to the propagation channels when relying
on multiple antennas for improved reach. Moreover, it may
include dynamic system adaptation through proper placement
of VNFs when the network suffers from temporary impair-
ments that take a significant amount of time to be repaired.
This article presented arguments in favor of a SI concept,
tightly integrated with EI, to enable enhanced mobility and
connectivity in critical missions using UAVs. Considering
it is challenging to design and implement such a concept
in practice, this paper also presents insights on integrat-
ing intelligence using current and future standards, and
an open-source testbed that can be used for research and
development.
111799
 S. Lins et al.: AI for Enhanced Mobility and 5G Connectivity in UAV-Based Critical Missions
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Ericsson employees do not access, use, or contribute to any of
the mentioned open source tools. Their contribution is related
to theoretical, conceptual, and architectural aspects.
REFERENCES
[1] J. M. Roldan and F. Ordoãez, ‘‘ITU guidelines for national emergency
telecommunication plans; ITU-D emergency telecommunications–disaster
response,’’ Int. Telecommun. Union, Geneva, Switzerland, Tech. Rep.,
2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Emergency-
Telecommunications/Documents/2020/NETP-guidelines.pdf
[2] X. Shen, J. Gao, W. Wu, K. Lyu, M. Li, W. Zhuang, X. Li, and J. Rao,
‘‘AI-assisted network-slicing based next-generation wireless networks,’’
IEEE Open J. Veh. Technol., vol. 1, pp. 45–66, 2020.
[3] Y. Wu, ‘‘Cloud-edge orchestration for the Internet of Things: Architecture
and ai-powered data processing,’’ IEEE Internet Things J., early access,
Aug. 7, 2021, doi: 10.1109/JIOT.2020.3014845.
[4] A. A. Gebremariam, M. Usman, and M. Qaraqe, ‘‘Applications of artificial
intelligence and machine learning in the area of SDN and NFV: A survey,’’
in Proc. 16th Int. Multi-Conf. Syst., Signals Devices (SSD), Mar. 2019,
pp. 545–549.
[5] S. Kekki, W. Featherstone, Y. Fang, P. Kuure, and A. Li, ‘‘MEC in
5G networks,’’ Eur. Telecommun. Standards Inst., Sophia Antipolis,
France, White Paper 28, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://www.etsi.
org/images/files/ETSIWhitePapers/etsi_wp28_mec_in_5G_FINAL.pdf
[6] Technical Specification Group Services and System Aspects; Release 15
Description; Summary of Rel-15 Work Items, document TR21.915, 3rd
Generation Partnership Project, 2015. [Online]. Available: https://portal.
3gpp.org/desktopmodules/Specifications/SpecificationDetails.aspx?
specificationId=3389
[7] Z. Zhou, X. Chen, E. Li, L. Zeng, K. Luo, and J. Zhang, ‘‘Edge intelligence:
Paving the last mile of artificial intelligence with edge computing,’’ Proc.
IEEE, vol. 107, no. 8, pp. 1738–1762, Aug. 2019.
[8] A. A. R. Alsaeedy and E. K. P. Chong, ‘‘5G and UAVs for mission-
critical communications: Swift network recovery for search-and-rescue
operations,’’ Mobile Netw. Appl., vol. 25, no. 5, pp. 2063–2081,
Oct. 2020.
[9] Q. Zhang, J. Chen, L. Ji, Z. Feng, Z. Han, and Z. Chen, ‘‘Response delay
optimization in mobile edge computing enabled UAV swarm,’’ IEEE Trans.
Veh. Technol., vol. 69, no. 3, pp. 3280–3295, Mar. 2020.
[10] B. Wang, Y. Sun, N. Zhao, and G. Gui, ‘‘Learn to coloring: Fast response
to perturbation in UAV-assisted disaster relief networks,’’ IEEE Trans. Veh.
Technol., vol. 69, no. 3, pp. 3505–3509, Mar. 2020.
[11] M. Moradi, K. Sundaresan, E. Chai, S. Rangarajan, and Z. M. Mao,
‘‘Skycore: Moving core to the edge for untethered and reliable UAV-based
LTE networks,’’ Mobile Comput. Commun., vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 24–29,
2019.
[12] A. Ferreira, L. Mendes, W. Dias, T. Marins, D. Gaspar, A. Matos, C. Silva,
and B. Sokal, ‘‘5G-RANGE project field trial,’’ in Proc. Eur. Conf. Netw.
Commun. (EuCNC), Jun. 2019, pp. 490–494.
[13] D. Shiri and F. S. Salman, ‘‘Online optimization of first-responder routes
in disaster response logistics,’’ IBM J. Res. Develop., vol. 64, nos. 1–2,
pp. 1–9, 2020.
[14] L. Liu, W. Ouyang, X. Wang, P. Fieguth, and J. Chen, ‘‘Deep learning for
generic object detection: A survey,’’ Int. J. Comput. Vis., vol. 128, no. 2,
pp. 261–318, Jan. 2020.
[15] J. H. Ko, T. Na, M. F. Amir, and S. Mukhopadhyay, ‘‘Edge-host
partitioning of deep neural networks with feature space encoding
for resource-constrained Internet-of-Things platforms,’’ in Proc. 15th
IEEE Int. Conf. Adv. Video Signal Based Surveill. (AVSS), Nov. 2018,
pp. 1–6.
[16] F. Brito, I. Nascimento, L. Gonçalves, S. Lins, N. Linder, and A. Klautau,
‘‘Signal compression for efficient partitioning of deep neural networks,’’
in Proc. Anais Simpósio Brasileiro Telecomun. Sinais, 2020, pp. 1–5.
[17] T. Jin and S. Hong, ‘‘Split-CNN: Splitting window-based operations in
convolutional neural networks for memory system optimization,’’ in Proc.
24th Int. Conf. Archit. Support Program. Lang. Oper. Syst., Apr. 2019,
pp. 835–847.
[18] A. Ghosh, A. Maeder, M. Baker, and D. Chandramouli, ‘‘5G evolution:
A view on 5G cellular technology beyond 3GPP release 15,’’ IEEE Access,
vol. 7, pp. 127639–127651, 2019.
111800
[19] L. Li, H. Ren, Q. Cheng, K. Xue, W. Chen, M. Debbah, and Z. Han,
‘‘Millimeter-wave networking in the sky: A machine learning and mean
field game approach for joint beamforming and beam-steering,’’ IEEE
Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 19, no. 10, pp. 6393–6408, Oct. 2020.
[20] R. Gangula, O. Esrafilian, D. Gesbert, C. Roux, F. Kaltenberger, and
R. Knopp, ‘‘Flying rebots: First results on an autonomous UAV-based LTE
relay using open airinterface,’’ in Proc. IEEE 19th Int. Workshop Signal
Process. Adv. Wireless Commun. (SPAWC), Jun. 2018, pp. 1–5.
SILVIA LINS received the B.Sc. degree in com-
puter engineering and the M.S. degree in electrical
engineering from the Federal University of Pará
(UFPA), in 2011 and 2013, respectively, where
she is currently pursuing the Ph.D. degree. She is
currently an Experienced Researcher in networks
area with Ericsson Research Brazil. Her current
research interests include machine learning for
transport and mobile networks optimization.
KLEBER VIEIRA CARDOSO received the bach-
elor’s degree in computer science from the Uni-
versidade Federal de Goiás (UFG), in 1997, and
the M.Sc. and Ph.D. degrees in electrical engineer-
ing from COPPE–Universidade Federal do Rio de
Janeiro, in 2002 and 2009, respectively. In 2015,
he spent his sabbatical at Virginia Tech, USA, and
Inria Saclay Research Centre, France, in 2020.
He is currently an Associate Professor with the
Institute of Informatics, UFG, where he has been
a Professor and a Researcher, since 2009.
CRISTIANO BONATO BOTH is currently an
Associate Professor of the Applied Comput-
ing Graduate Program with the University of
Vale do Rio dos Sinos (UNISINOS), Brazil.
He also coordinators research projects funded by
H2020 EU-Brazil, CNPq, FAPERGS, and RNP.
He has been participating in several technical
programs and organizing committees for differ-
ent worldwide conferences and congresses. His
research interests include wireless networks, next-
generation networks, softwarization and virtualization technologies for
telecommunication networks, and SDN-like solutions for the Internet of
Things.
LUCIANO MENDES received the Ph.D. degree
in electrical engineering from the State Univer-
sity of Campinas, Brazil, in 2007. Since 2001,
he has been a Professor with the National Institute
of Telecommunications (Inatel), Brazil, where he
acts as a Research Coordinator of the Radiocom-
munications Reference Center. His main research
interest includes physical layer for future mobile
networks.
VOLUME 9, 2021
S. Lins et al.: AI for Enhanced Mobility and 5G Connectivity in UAV-Based Critical Missions
JOSÉ F. DE REZENDE received the Ph.D. degree
in computer science from Université Pierre et
Marie Curie, in 1997. He was an Associate
Researcher with Université Pierre et Marie Curie,
in 1997. Since 1998, he has been an Associate
Professor with the Federal University of Rio
de Janeiro. His research interests include dis-
tributed multimedia applications, QoS in the inter-
net, mobile networks, wireless communication,
and experimental platforms.
ANTONIO SILVEIRA received the Ph.D. degree in
automation and systems engineering from the Fed-
eral University of Santa Catarina (UFSC), in 2012.
He is currently an Adjunct Professor with the
Institute of Technology, Federal University of Pará
(UFPA), where he is working on undergraduate
and graduate courses in the areas of control and
systems in electrical and biomedical engineering.
VOLUME 9, 2021
NEIVA LINDER received the Ph.D. degree in elec-
trical engineering from the Federal University of
Pará (UFPA), in 2009. She held a postdoctoral
position in telecommunications at Lund Univer-
sity, in 2010. She is currently a Research Leader
with the Network Orchestration and Automation
Area, Ericsson Research, Sweden, working with
AI-based mobile networks automation and service
assurance.
ALDEBARO KLAUTAU (Senior Member, IEEE)
received the Ph.D. degree in electrical and
computer engineering from the University of
California at San Diego (UCSD), in 2003.
He is currently a Full Professor with the
Federal University of Pará (UFPA), where he
is the ITU-T Focal Point and the Coordina-
tor of LASSE. He is also a Researcher with
CNPq, Brazil. His research interests include
machine learning and signal processing for
telecommunications.
111801