 Research
 Open Access
 Published:
Distributed energyefficient and secure offloading in airtoground MEC networks
EURASIP Journal on Advances in Signal Processing volume 2021, Article number: 71 (2021)
Abstract
This paper mainly investigates the energyefficient and secure offloading problem in airtoground Mobile Edge Computing (MEC) networks. The proposed efficient offloading mechanism is as per the requirements of the heterogeneous tasks of ground users. Further, the optimizing offloading rate, offloading object, and channel access jointly formulate system energy consumption and eavesdropping rate minimization. A distributed twostage offloading scheme is proposed for achieving the suboptimal solution for the Mixedinteger Nonlinear Programming (MINLP) problem. Finally, simulation results demonstrate that the proposed scheme is superior to several benchmark schemes.
Introduction
Mobile Edge Computing (MEC) is a promising technology for future wireless networks as it can provide lowlatency and contextaware services for terminal users [1, 2]. With the improvement of software and hardware capabilities, Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) have become efficient edge computing node due to easy deployment and good communication quality for ground users [3,4,5]. However, the UAV network has limited energy [6, 7] and is vulnerable to eavesdropping attacks [8,9,10]. Thus, designing an energyefficient and secure offloading mechanism is significant. Hence, we study the energyefficient and secure offloading in airtoground MEC networks by jointly optimizing offloading strategies and resource allocation.
For solving longdistance and backhaul link congestion problem in cloud computing [11], the MEC paradigm deploys cloud servers close to the mobile devices, for instance, by integrating computing servers inside Base Stations (BSs) or Access Points (APs) on the network architecture. Mobile users can utilize both the computing and storage resources of surrounding BSs and idle end devices [12] by cellular communication and DevicetoDevice (D2D) communication. Recently, higher mobility and lower cost of UAVs have led to significant research interests in the UAVassisted MEC systems. UAVs as a computing server can improve communication conditions and service quality to mobile users [13].
By deploying a UAVassisted MEC system, end devices can efficiently complete delaysensitive applications. In [14,15,16,17,18,19,20], the secure data offloading mechanisms were investigated along with the research on UAVassisted MEC systems [21,22,23,24]. Physical layer security has become one of the constraints when data offloading occurs in the MEC system. Thus, it’s critical to design an energyefficient [25, 26] and secure data offloading framework. However, the main way to avoid eavesdropping is to apply jamming signals or change the transmission power in existing work. And the optimization problem in these works is often difficult to resolve with traditional optimization methods. Hence, to solve the above problem, we exploit secure channel access by channel switching [27,28,29,30,31] and propose a twostage task and resource assignment method that exploits convex optimization theory [32] and fading memory joint strategy fictitious play with inertia (FMJSFP) [33] to formulate the problem and resolve it.
The main contributions of this paper are summarized as follows.

The designed multiphase task offloading mechanism based on the time block is as per the MEC framework. Further, optimizing offloading objects, offloading rate, and channel access jointly formulate the system function (i.e., the weighted sum of energy consumption and eavesdropping rate) minimization problem with task delay and computing capacity.

To solve the nonconvex optimization problem, we propose a distributed twostage source allocation algorithm. The algorithm based on the convex optimization method and FMJSFP algorithm enables UDs to make suboptimal decisions. And it does not need a central decision controller.

Simulation results demonstrate that the proposed scheme improves the system energysaving and security compared with some benchmark schemes. What’s more, it achieves the suboptimal performance on system function.
Related work
Recently, the UAVenabled MEC systems have investigated in the existing studies. The work presented in [13] considers a resource scheduling mechanism in UAVenabled MEC systems for Internet of Things Devices (IoTD). Further, UAV provides computing and energy resources to IoTD at the same time. Finally, the energy consumption of the system decreases by multiresource scheduling. In [21], the authors studied a UAVassisted MEC system having a moving UAV endowed with computing capabilities to offer sufficient computing resources to mobile users (MUs) and limited local task processing capabilities. The system aims at minimizing the overall energy consumption for the MUs. In [34, 35], the authors considered a wireless communication system having a rotarywing UAV equipped with a computing server to assist several mobile terminals (MTs). The proposed method effectively reduces the maximum energy consumption among all MTs by transforming the nonconvex optimization problem into efficient subproblems. In [22], the authors studied complement time and energy optimization problem in the UAVenabled MEC system.
Some of the works focused on multiUAVassisted MEC scenarios. In [36], the researchers established a new multiUAV MEC system. It also presented an efficient twolayer optimization scheme for jointly optimizing the horizontal deployment position of UAVs and task scheduling, intending to minimize the energy consumption of all UAVs. The proposed algorithm has potential applications in largescale mobile user scenarios. In [5], the authors formulated the sum power minimization problem with latency and coverage constraints as three subproblems and their respective solutions. The study also considered the energy consumption of all User Equipments (UEs) and UAVs as the UAVs are also power constraints. However, the offloading data mechanism for UEs covered by the same UAV is unclear. In [37], the authors focus on the scenario with multiple UAVs having different computing capacities supporting data collection and processing for IoTDs. The Time Division Duplexing (TDD) mode is applied to every IoTDs served by one UAV. Dissimilar to the above traditional optimization methods (i.e., based on the convex optimization theory), [38] proposed a reinforcement learning (RL)based user association and resource assignment algorithm for addressing the minimum energy consumption problem. However, the transmission mechanism for the user offload data is not provided (i.e., TDD mechanism, FDD mechanism, or others in reality). In [39], system energy consumption minimization problem was studied in the UAVassisted MEC system. To solve the MINLP problem, a twostage offloading scheme based on convex optimization and stochastic learning automata (SLA) algorithm was proposed. The simulation results show that the distributed hierarchical mechanism is suitable for solving complex optimization problems.
Studies on security mechanisms for IoT devices in MEC systems have emerged. In [14], the researchers investigated a new MEC framework achieving secure communication for IoT applications. It exploits the key for achieving a reliable connection between the mobile users and the servers. In [15], the authors consider the physical layer security problem of terrestrial MEC systems. Mobile stations optimize system energy consumption under the constraints of antieavesdropping. In [16, 17], the authors study secure offloading decisions based on securityawareness in MEC systems. IoT devices prefer servers not attacked by the jammers for obtaining stable and secure services.
The earlier studies [18,19,20] investigated secure offloading for UAVenabled MEC systems. U. A. Khan et al. [18] exploited chaotic cryptography to encrypt offloading tasks for security. Further, the study formulated an energy consumption minimization problem and solved it with heuristic algorithms. In [19], the authors considered a threenode model (i.e., a UAV, a access point, and an eavesdropper) and studied the energyefficiency and secure offloading problem. The Access Point (AP) transmitted the noise signals to the eavesdropper for degrading the eavesdropping quality. Besides, [20] also considered the secure communication problem in the UAVenabled MEC system. Both the legitimate UAV and idle ground users transmit jamming signals, alleviated the existence of passive eavesdropping.
Despite prior investigations on energyefficiency and secure offloading mechanisms, there are a few differences between the current work and the aforediscussed studies. The specific expression is as follows: 1) We propose a secure channel access scheme to avoid eavesdropping attacks, as the existing antieavesdropping approaches cannot completely eliminate the risk of eavesdropping . 2) We study the distributed offloading scheme in UAVenabled airtoground MEC Networks.
Method
The aim of this paper is to study a distributed energyefficient and secure offloading scheme in airtoground MEC networks. This paper designs a task offloading mechanism, which considers the delay sensitivity of user tasks and the limited computing resources of mobile equipments. What’s more, the energy consumption and eavesdropping rate minimization problem is formulated for system energyconstraint and physical layer security. To solve the complex nonconvex problem, the twostage offloading optimization framework is designed. The twostage offloading scheme based on convex optimization method and learningbased algorithm achieves the suboptimal solution with low complexity.
The effectiveness of the twostage offloading scheme are supported by the experimental evaluation with the random generated network topology and user parameters, while the simulations have been carried out with Matlab R2017b.
System model and problem formulation
System model
In this paper, we consider a heterogeneous UAVenabled airtoground MEC network as depicted in Fig. 1. In the MEC network, there are K ground users (Users Devices, i.e., UDs), W legitimate UAV nodes (Helpers Devices, i.e., HDs) and an eavesdropper (EV). UDs have low latency and critical tasks to process and so need to seek assistance from HDs under some circumstance. To reduce tasks execution costs while fulfilling demand, UDs need to optimize them offloading decision. Notably, the computing capacity of HDs is more powerful than UDs. Hence, UDs can avail better service quality (e.g., lower delay, lower energy consumption) from HDs in the constraints of the computing capacity of HDs.
At the beginning period, the tasks that need to be processed are generated at the UDs and it has two ways to process them at this time: (1) Computing all tasks locally, (2) Selecting a HD to assist themselves. In some cases, UDs choosing to compute all tasks locally cannot complete the missions under the task delay constraint. Therefore, UDs must offload the tasks to idle HDs at this time. For simplicity, we assume that each UD selects one HD as the helper and a specific HD can assist an unlimited number of UDs under resources constraint. Notably, for multiple UDs choosing the same HD, the computing resources allocated by each UD will reduce.
Nevertheless, the UDs deciding to offload tasks will exploit a single channel to transmit the offloading data and interfere with other UDs occupying the same channel. UDs and HDs finishing the computing tasks will transmit the results of the computing tasks to the logical cluster head (preassigned by a specified UAV) for data aggregation.
However, during data offloading, malicious eavesdroppers can obtain the data due to the sharing of wireless channels, which leads to user safety and privacy violations. Therefore, considering security measurement as a factor is essential in making offloading decisions.
UDs and HDs sets are \({\mathcal {K}}\text {=}\left\{ 1,\ldots k,\ldots ,K \right\}\) and \({\mathcal {W}}\text {=}\left\{ 1,\ldots ,w,\ldots ,W \right\}\), respectively, and the set of available channel is \({\mathcal {M}}=\left\{ 1,\ldots ,m,\ldots ,M \right\}\). Besides, suppose there is a multiantenna eavesdropper EV. EV eavesdrops on multiple channels. We define the position of legitimate UAV w as \(\left( {{x}_{w}},{{y}_{w}},H \right) ,w\in {\mathcal {W}}\). Similarly, the position of EV is \(\left( {{x}_{EV}},{{y}_{EV}},H \right)\) and the position of UD k is \(\left( {{x}_{k}},{{y}_{k}},0 \right) ,k\in {\mathcal {K}}\). Essentially, UDs can estimate the location of EV [40]. Therefore, we assume that the location of EV is known as a priori. Considering the airtoground channel as the lineofsight (LOS) link, the channels power gain from UD k to HD w and EV is \({{h}_{k,w}}=\frac{{{\beta }_{0}}}{{{\left( {{x}_{k}}{{x}_{w}} \right) }^{2}}+{{\left( {{y}_{k}}{{y}_{w}} \right) }^{2}}+{{H}^{2}}}\) and \({{h}_{k,EV}}=\frac{{{\beta }_{0}}}{{{\left( {{x}_{k}}{{x}_{EV}} \right) }^{2}}+{{\left( {{y}_{k}}{{y}_{EV}} \right) }^{2}}+{{H}^{2}}}\). Here, \({{\beta }_{0}}\) represents the channel power at the reference distance \({{d}_{0}}=1\). Thus, the data transmission rate between UD k and HD w is as follows:
Here B is the channel bandwidth, \({{N}_{0}}\) denotes the background noise power, and \({p}_{k,w}\) represents transmission power of UD k. Similarly, the eavesdropping rate (if it exists) between UD k and EV is as follows:
Here \({p}_{k,EV}\) is the transmission power between UD k and eavesdropper EV. Though, the exact value of \({h}_{k,EV}\) is difficult to obtain. However, the probability distribution can usually be estimated [41]. Therefore, the value of \({h}_{k,EV}\) can be used as a priori in this paper.
The computing task of UD \(k\left( k\in {\mathcal {K}} \right)\) can be defined as \({{\nu }_{k}}=\left\{ {{\gamma }_{k}},{{\eta }_{k}},{{\tau }_{k}} \right\}\), where \({{\gamma }_{k}}\) is the number of tasks to be processed in UDs, \({{\eta }_{k}}\) represents the number of CPU cycles per byte required for computing when UDs and HDs process tasks, \({{\tau }_{k}}\) is the maximum delay requirements of tasks processing. Let \({{{\mathcal {S}}}_{k}}\text {=}\left\{ {{{\mathcal {D}}}_{k}},{{{\mathcal {Q}}}_{k}} \right\}\) indicate the strategy profile of UD k, where \({{{\mathcal {D}}}_{k}}\text {=}\left\{ \rho _{k}^{w}w\in {\mathcal {W}},0\le \rho _{k}^{w}\le 1 \right\}\) represents the UD k’s task assignment and association with HDs. For example, \(\rho _{k}^{w}=0\) when UD k decides to process all tasks locally and \(\rho _{k}^{w}=1\) when it transmits all task data to HD w. \({{{\mathcal {Q}}}_{k}}\text {=}\left\{ q_{k,w}\right\}\) is the transmission channel between UD k and HD w when computation offloading exists; note that \(q_{k,w}\) represents the channel selected by UD k. Particularly, \(q_{k,w}=0\) represents that UD k computes all tasks locally. UD k’s work process has five phases, as shown in Fig. 2.
Global information interaction and offloading decision
Above all, all UDs and HDs begin to interact with others after the task generation. Interactive information includes task delay, the size of tasks (only UDs need to provide this information), and computing capacity (of both UDs and HDs). Further, UDs exploit an efficient task offloading mechanism to decide the suboptimal strategy (including UDs’ offloading rate, offloading object, and transmission channel) and the suboptimal strategy should improve the energy efficiency and safety of the airtoground MEC system as much as possible under the constraints of the tasks delay and the computing capacity.
Tasks offloading
According to (1), the transmission time of task data (offloading part) of UD k is:
Accordingly, the communication energy consumption of UD k is:
The set of UDs helps by HD w are \({{{\mathcal {Z}}}_{w}}=\left\{ {{z}_{w,1}},{{z}_{w,2}},\ldots ,{{z}_{w,{{l}_{w}}}} \right\}\) , where \({{l}_{w}}\) is the number of UDs helped by HD w. We suppose that each HD equally distributes the computing resources to the assisted UDs.
Remoting computation
The association HD of UD k begins to implement computing tasks after task offloading. The time duration in this phase is:
Here, \({{f}_{w}}\) is the computing capacity of HD w (in GHz) and \({{\alpha }_{w}}=\frac{1}{{{l}_{w}}}\). Then, the overall energy consumption of w (HDs only have the computing energy consumption) is as follows:
Here \(\kappa {}_{w}\) is a factor indicating the effective capacitance coefficient related to the hardware architecture of the computing units [42].
Local computation: Then the time for UD k to perform local computing is as follows:
Here \({{f}_{k}}\) denote the CPU frequency of UD k (also in GHz). Therefore, the energy consumption of UD k’s local computing is:
Here \({{\kappa }_{k}}\) is a constant coefficient which reflects the energy consumption of CPU when processing data tasks (same as \({{\kappa }_{w}}\) above). Finally, for the tasks generated by UD k , its whole execution time is:
The overall energy consumption of UD k (including computing part and communication part) is:
while the whole energy consumption of HD w (only the computing part) is:
Results aggregation
After performing all tasks, both UDs and HDs will upload results to the logical cluster head (a prespecified role, played by a legitimate UAV) for data aggregation. The cluster head will collect the data analysis results or forwarding them to other nodes needing information. Most of the existing research works related to MEC usually ignore the size of the data. Similarly, we do not consider the data size of the results in this study and thus, ignoring the time spent in this phase.
In this paper, we consider a quasistatic scenario in which all mobile devices states have no change during an offloading time block (e.g., within a few hundred milliseconds). In other words, the location relationship between mobile devices is almost unchanged, and the UDs does not need to process the newly arrived task data.
Problem formulation
In this section, the objective is minimizing the weighted sum of system eavesdropping rate and energy consumption under multiple constraints. The optimization problem is as follows:
Here, the \({{E}_{k}}\) and \({{E}_{w}}\) indicate the respective energy consumption of UD k and HD w and \({\varepsilon }_{1}\) and \({\varepsilon }_{2}\) are weighting factors. \({{C}_{k}}\) represents the eavesdropping rate from UD k to the eavesdropper, and \({{C}_{k}}={{c}_{k}}\) . The constraint \({\mathbf {C}}1\) represents that the remote computing and offloading time of UD k should less than \({T}_{k}\) (corresponds to the constraints of task delay). The constraint \({\mathbf {C}}2\) indicates that the time of local computing of each UD cannot exceed \({T}_{k}\). Besides, the constraint \({\mathbf {C}}3\) shows that the range for tasks offloading rate of UD k should be within \(\left[ 0,1 \right]\). The system energy consumption reduces when UDs offload the data to HDs, but it increases the risk of eavesdropping. Therefore, it is a tradeoff between low energy consumption offloading and safe communication. UDs optimize the optimization variables (i.e., offloading rate, offloading object, and offloading channel) to minimize the objective function.
Secure and green offloading scheme
Problem reformulation
The above optimization problem is a mixedinteger nonlinear programming (MINLP) problem and the optimization variables are coupled with each other. Further, the closedform solution of this optimization problem is difficult to obtain. Hence, we reformulate the optimization problem \(\left( {\mathcal {P}}0 \right)\) to task assignment and UDs association subproblem, and adding auxiliary variables. The steps are as follows.
First, design a decision matrix \(\mathbf {\pi }=\left\{ {{\pi }_{i,j}} \right\} ,{{\pi }_{i,j}}\in {{{\mathbb {R}}}^{\text {K}\times \text {W}}}\) , where \({{\pi }_{i,j}}\in \left\{ 0,1,2,\ldots ,M \right\}\) indicates tasks offloading object and the transmission channel. For example, \({\pi }_{i,j}\) represent that UD i chooses to offload the tasks to HD j by channel \({\pi }_{i,j}\) (especially \({{\pi }_{i,:}}=0\) if UD i executes computing locally). Notably, the number of nonzero elements in every row of \(\mathbf {\pi }\) is 1 (i.e., each UD can only find one HD to assist in the computing) and define a function \(\delta \left( \cdot \right)\) for redescribing of optimization goals:
A offloading rate vector \({\mathbf {x}}=\left\{ {{x}_{1}},{{x}_{2}},\ldots ,{{x}_{K}} \right\}\) represents each UD’s offloading rate, and the optimal problem is:
where \(C\left( \mathbf {\pi } \right) =\sum \nolimits _{k\in {\mathcal {K}}}{{{C}_{k}}}\). In the following section, we refer to the optimization objective as a “system function”. The whole energy consumption of the system (including all UDs and HDs) \(E\left( \mathbf {\pi },{\mathbf {x}} \right)\) is as follows:
To more clearly describe the problem \(\left( {\mathcal {P}}{1} \right)\), we convert the form of \(\left( {\mathcal {P}}{1} \right)\) to \(\left( {\mathcal {P}}{1}' \right)\):
Here constant \({{\psi }_{k}}={{\gamma }_{k}}\left( \frac{{{p}_{k,w}}}{{{R}_{k,w}}}{{\kappa }_{k}}{{\eta }_{k}}f_{k}^{2} \right)\) ,\({{\zeta }_{k}}=\sum \nolimits _{m\in {\mathcal {W}}}{\delta \left( {{\pi }_{k,m}} \right) }{{\gamma }_{k}}{{\eta }_{k}}\alpha _{m}^{2}f_{m}^{2}{{\kappa }_{m}}\), and \(\phi =\sum \nolimits _{k\in {\mathcal {K}}}{{{\kappa }_{k}}}{{\gamma }_{k}}{{\eta }_{k}}f_{k}^{2}\). Notably, for a fixed \(\mathbf {\pi }\), these variables have fixed values.
A distributed twostage offloading scheme
At the first stage, the ratio between \({{T}_{1,k}}\) and \({{T}_{2,k}}\) (\({{T}_{1,k}}+{{T}_{2,k}}={{T}_{k}}\)) is fixed for simplicity. The function of \({{T}_{1,k}}\) and \({{T}_{2,k}}\) is to limit the maximum value of \(t_{k}^{\mathrm{off}}\) and \(t_{k}^{\mathrm{remote}}\) (i.e., \(t_{k}^{\mathrm{off}}\le {{T}_{1,k}}\), \(t_{k}^{\mathrm{remote}}\le {{T}_{2,k}}\)). Splitting \({{T}_{k}}\) was to prevent UDs from making unreasonable decisions. For instance, larger values of \(t_{k}^{\mathrm{off}}\) represents that UDs offload numerous tasks to HDs, which can obstruct the completion of the offloading tasks by HDs within the maximum delay constraint. Thus, setting a reasonable ratio between \({{T}_{1,k}}\) and \({{T}_{2,k}}\) is imperative. So, constraints for \({\mathbf {C}}1,{\mathbf {C}}2\) are as follows:
Here constant \({{\sigma }_{k}}=\frac{{{T}_{2,k}}{{\alpha }_{w\left( k \right) }}{{f}_{w\left( k \right) }}}{{{\gamma }_{k}}{{\eta }_{k}}}\), \({{\chi }_{k}}=\frac{{{R}_{k,w}}{{T}_{1,k}}}{{{\gamma }_{k}}}\), and \({{\varsigma }_{k}}=1\frac{\left( {{T}_{1,k}}+{{T}_{2,k}} \right) {{f}_{k}}}{{{\gamma }_{k}}{{\eta }_{k}}}\). \(w\left( k \right)\) represents the particular HD that assisted UD k.
First, a initial decision matrix \({{\mathbf {\pi }}_{0}}\) is randomly produced. After fixing the decision \({{\mathbf {\pi }}_{0}}\), the system function and offloading rate \({\mathbf {x}}\) become linear. Analyzing the monotonicity of the system function (using convex optimization theory) provides the following optimal offloading ratio \(x_{k}^{*}\):
At the second stage, based on the \(x_{k}^{*}\) of the first stage, the optimization objective of the system is expressed as:
The above expression depicts that its value depends on the matrix variable \(\mathbf {\pi }\) only.
Next, we introduce a learningbased distributed algorithm for joint assignment of computing and channel resources mainly based on the fading memory joint strategy fictitious play with inertia (FMJSFP). FMJSFP is an efficient distributed learning method for the offloading decision problem as it has computational processability in large networks. Further, it can exploit historical information to make decisions. The discount factor \(\lambda\) represents the crucial degree of historical information. After the fixing of first decision \(x_{k}^{*}\), the strategy set in the tth slot of UD k is expressed as \({{{\mathcal {S}}}_{k}}=\left\{ \left( {{w}_{k}} ,{{m}_{k}} \right) {{w}_{k}}\in {\mathcal {W}},{{m}_{k}}\in \left\{ 1,2,\ldots ,M \right\} \right\} ,\forall k\in {\mathcal {K}}\), which corresponds to the strategy matrix \(\mathbf {\pi }\). In this distributed algorithm, the utility of each UD is:
where \({{S}_{k}}\left( t \right)\) indicates the action in the tth slot of UD k and \({{S}_{k}}\left( t \right)\) represents the action except for UD k. Notably, the sum of the utility of all UDs is the “system function”.
To summarize, Algorithm 1 enlists the specific steps, and Fig. 3 shows the graphical illustration of the distributed twostage scheme.
For further clarification, we describe the rules for setting the penalty value (i.e., \({{\Delta }_{k}}\)) in detail. We add the penalty value to the utility for the decisions generated (i.e., \({\varvec{\pi }}\) ) by Algorithm 1 make the next iteration decision (i.e., \({\mathbf {x}}\) at the next moment) infeasible. Specifically, by introducing penalty value \({{\Delta }_{k}}\) into utility, UDs tend to choose actions without penalty value in the process of iteration. Meanwhile, when decision \({\varvec{\pi }}\) without penalty value is fixed, there is a feasible solution for decision variable \({\mathbf {x}}\) in the next iteration. In other words, the penalty value eliminates the decision (corresponding to matrix \(\mathbf {\pi }\)) that does not satisfy the constraints.
Algorithm complexity analysis
First, in each slot n, each UD selects a optimal offloading rate \({\mathbf {x}}\), and the computation complexity is \({\mathcal {O}}\left( {{C}_{1}}K \right)\), where \({{C}_{1}}K\) is a small constant. Then, each UD runs the FMJSFP algorithm to decide optimal \(\mathbf {\pi }\) based on \({\mathbf {x}}\) above. In the worst case, the FMJSFP algorithm needs to run \({{I}_{\max }}\) times. When the FMJSFP algorithm runs, UDs select actions and the computation complexity is \({\mathcal {O}}\left( {{C}_{2}}K \right)\), where \({{C}_{2}}K\) is a small constant. Then, UDs compute their utilities and update belief. The corresponding computation complexity is \({\mathcal {O}}\left( {{C}_{3}}K \right)\), where \({{C}_{3}}K\) is a small constant. So the computation complexity of the FMJSFP algorithm is \({{T}_{\mathrm{end}}}\left( {\mathcal {O}}\left( {{C}_{2}}K \right) +{\mathcal {O}}\left( {{C}_{3}}K \right) \right)\), where \({{T}_{\mathrm{end}}}\) is the maximum iteration times of the FMJSFP algorithm. In summary, the time complexity of Algorithm 1 in the worst case is:
where \({{N}_{\max }}\) is the maximum iteration times of the outer loop.
Simulation results and discussion
Simulation parameters
In this subsection, we illustrate the main simulation parameter values with Table 1. Notably, \(X\sim {\mathcal {U}}\left[ b,c \right]\) indicates that X obeys the uniform distribution within \(\left[ b,c \right]\). Besides, the computing capacities setting of UDs are weaker than HDs, which is similar to [43].
Network topology
Figure 4 demonstrates a random topology of 400mby400m in airtoground MEC networks (the location of the eavesdropping UAV is far away). There are five UDs with different mission requirements which probably offload data to HDs and four idle HDs which can assist UDs in computing tasks, i.e., \({\mathcal {K}}\text {=}\left\{ 1,2,3,4,5 \right\}\) and \({\mathcal {W}}\text {=}\left\{ 1,2,3,4 \right\}\).
Algorithm convergence and performance comparison
Multiple benchmark schemes mentioned in the simulation results are as follows:

The Optimal Scheme It is an exhaustive method, which achieves the theoretically optimal solution has high algorithm complexity. With the increases in decision space, dimensionality explosion can occur. Further, the time complexity is \({\mathcal {O}}\left( {{\left( M\cdot W \right) }^{K}} \right)\).

The Local Computing Scheme All UDs perform computing tasks locally without considering task delay constraints.

The Random Offloading Scheme UDs randomly select the offloading object and the transmission channel. The system function value for this scheme is the average of multiple actions (with the simulation number set to 1000).
Figure 5 presents the system function values with the proposed scheme and optimal schemes versus the iteration times. Further, we average the multiple simulation results for the algorithm provides the curve shown in the figure. It can be seen that the algorithm reaches convergence after several iterations. Besides, the performance gap between proposed and optimal scheme is small (reach about 10\(\%\)).
Figure 6 presents the energy consumption values with the proposed scheme and optimal schemes versus the iteration times (let \({\varepsilon }_{1} = 0\) and \({\varepsilon }_{2} = 1\)). Similarly, to eliminate the randomness, we run the algorithm many times (the order of 100) and get the average value. It can be seen that the algorithm reaches convergence after several hundreds of iterations. What’s more, the energy consumption of the proposed scheme is similar to that of the optimal scheme (only about 7\(\%\) more). On the other hand, Fig. 6 also shows that the performance of the proposed scheme in a single target is better with low computational complexity.
Figure 7 demonstrates the value of the system function of different schemes under different number of HDs. In various scenarios, the performance of the proposed offloading scheme is close to the optimal offloading scheme. As the number of HDs changes, the reason why the optimal value of the system function is almost unchanged is that UDs workload and channel conditions have hardly changed. In terms of the value of the system function, the proposed scheme is better than that of the local computing scheme and the random offloading scheme.
Figure 8 presents the performance of the proposed scheme under different number of UDs. Notably, the number of HDs and available channel is 4 and 3, respectively. It shows that as the number of UDs grows (represent the increase of task load), the value of the system function continues to rise. Besides, the gap between the performance of the proposed scheme and the optimal scheme is small (the worstcase performance gap is 18\(\%\)). Although the gap between the local computing scheme and the proposed scheme is not large, the local computing scheme cannot generally meet UDs’ task delay requirements.
Figure 9 demonstrates that the convergence value of the proposed offloading scheme is close to the optimal offloading scheme for different parameters a. And under different parameter settings, the convergence rate is about the same. Notably, parameter a can affect the system function value and it is application dependent. Thus, the decision of the parameter a need to be inspected in practical tests.
Conclusion
This paper investigated security and green offloading problem in airtoground MEC networks. To solve the Mixedinteger Nonlinear Programming (MINLP) problem, the optimization problem was decomposed into two suboptimization problems and the optimization variables were decoupled. Further, we proposed a distributed twostage offloading scheme, which considered the requirements of user devices (UDs) for heterogeneous tasks, the heterogeneous computing capacity of helper devices (HDs), and the presence of eavesdroppers (EV). The proposed scheme based on the convex optimization and learning approach can successfully realize the secure and energyefficient offloading for the system. Simulation results show that the proposed offloading scheme achieves better performance than benchmark schemes.
Availability of data and materials
Data and materials sharing not applicable to this paper as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.
Abbreviations
 MEC:

mobile edge computing
 MINLP:

mixedinteger nonlinear programming
 UAVs:

unmanned aerial vehicles
 BSs:

base stations
 APs:

access points
 D2D:

devicetodevice
 FMJSFP:

fading memory joint strategy fictitious play with inertia
 IoTD:

internet of things devices
 MTs:

mobile terminals
 UEs:

user equipments
 TDD:

time division duplexing
 RL:

reinforcement learning
 UDs:

users devices
 HDs:

helpers devices
References
 1.
Y. Mao, C. You, J. Zhang, K. Huang, K.B. Letaief, A survey on mobile edge computing: the communication perspective. IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor. 19, 2322–2358 (2017)
 2.
Y. Zhao, W. Wang, Y. Li, C. Colman Meixner, M. Tornatore, J. Zhang, Edge computing and networking: a survey on infrastructures and applications. IEEE Access 7, 101213–101230 (2019)
 3.
R. Amorim, H. Nguyen, P. Mogensen, I.Z. Kovacs, J. Wigard, T.B. Sorensen, Radio channel modeling for UAV communication over cellular networks. IEEE Wirel. Commun. Lett. 6, 514–517 (2017)
 4.
A. AlHourani, K. Gomez, Modeling cellulartoUAV pathloss for suburban environments. IEEE Wirel. Commun. Lett. 7, 82–85 (2018)
 5.
Z. Yang, C. Pan, K. Wang, M. ShikhBahaei, Energy efficient resource allocation in UAVenabled mobile edge computing networks. IEEE Trans. Wirel. Commun. 18, 4576–4589 (2019)
 6.
Shakhatreh et al., Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs): a survey on civil applications and key research challenges. IEEE Access 7, 48572–48634 (2019)
 7.
I. Bekmezci, O. Sahingoz, a Temel, Flying adhoc networks (FANETs): a survey. Ad Hoc Netw. 11, 1254–1270 (2013)
 8.
J. Xu, L. Duan, R. Zhang, Surveillance and intervention of infrastructurefree mobile communications: a new wireless security paradigm. IEEE Wirel. Commun. 24, 152–159 (2017)
 9.
H. Lu, H. Zhang, H. Dai, W. Wu, B. Wang, Proactive eavesdropping in UAVaided suspicious communication systems. IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol. 68, 1993–1997 (2019)
 10.
J. Ye, C. Zhang, H. Lei, G. Pan, Z. Ding, Secure UAVtoUAV systems with spatially random UAVs. IEEE Wirel. Commun. Lett. 8, 564–567 (2019)
 11.
S. Wang, X. Zhang, Y. Zhang, L. Wang, J. Yang, W. Wang, A survey on mobile edge networks: convergence of computing, caching and communications. IEEE Access 5, 6757–6779 (2017)
 12.
M. Mehrabi, D. You, V. Latzko, H. Salah, M. Reisslein, F.H.P. Fitzek, Deviceenhanced MEC: multiaccess edge computing (MEC) aided by end device computation and caching—a survey. IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol. 7, 166079–166108 (2019)
 13.
Y. Du, K. Yang, K. Wang, G. Zhang, Y. Zhao, D. Chen, Joint resources and workflow scheduling in UAVenabled wirelesslypowered MEC for IoT systems. IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol. 68, 10187–10200 (2019)
 14.
X. Xu et al., Secure service offloading for internet of vehicles in SDNenabled mobile edge computing. IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst. 22, 3720–3729 (2020)
 15.
H. Yang et al., Secure resource allocation in mobile edge computing systems, in 2019 IEEE Global Communications Conference (GLOBECOM) (2019), pp. 1–6
 16.
B. Li, T. Chen, X. Wang, G.B. Giannakis, Secure edge computing in IoT via online learning, in 2018 52nd Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems, and Computers (2018), pp. 2149–2153
 17.
B. Li, T. Chen, G.B. Giannakis, Secure mobile edge computing in IoT via collaborative online learning. IEEE Trans. Signal Process. 67, 5922–5935 (2019)
 18.
U. A. Khan, W. Khalid, S. Saifullah, Energy efficient resource allocation and computation offloading strategy in a UAVenabled secure edgecloud computing system, in 2020 IEEE International Conference on Smart Internet of Things (SmartIoT) (2020), pp. 58–63
 19.
T. Bai, J. Wang, Y. Ren, L. Hanzo, Energyefficient computation offloading for secure UAVedgecomputing systems. IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol. 68, 6074–6087 (2019)
 20.
Y. Zhou et al., Secure communications for UAVenabled mobile edge computing systems. IEEE Trans. Commun. 68, 376–388 (2020)
 21.
S. Jeong, O. Simeone, J. Kang, Mobile edge computing via a UAVmounted cloudlet: optimization of bit allocation and path planning. IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol. 67, 2049–2063 (2018)
 22.
C. Zhan, H. Hu, X. Sui, Z. Liu, D. Niyato, Completion time and energy optimization in the UAVenabled mobileedge computing system. IEEE IoT J. 7, 7808–7822 (2020)
 23.
H. Mei, K. Yang, Q. Liu, K. Wang, Joint trajectoryresource optimization in UAVenabled edgecloud system with virtualized mobile clone. IEEE IoT J. 7, 5906–5921 (2020)
 24.
Y. Liu, K. Xiong, Q. Ni, P. Fan, K.B. Letaief, UAVassisted wireless powered cooperative mobile edge computing: joint offloading, CPU control, and trajectory optimization. IEEE IoT J. 7, 2777–2790 (2020)
 25.
N. Qi, N.I. Miridakis, M. Xiao et al., Trafficaware twostage queueing communication networks: queue analysis and energy saving. IEEE Trans. Commun. 68, 4919–4932 (2020)
 26.
N. Qi, M. Xiao, T.A. Tsiftsis et al., Efficient coded cooperative networks with energy harvesting and transferring. IEEE Trans. Wirel. Commun. 16, 6335–6349 (2017)
 27.
Y. Xu et al., Convert harm into benefit: a coordinationlearning based dynamic spectrum antijamming approach. IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol. 69, 13018–13032 (2020)
 28.
Y. Xu, A. Anpalagan, Q. Wu, L. Shen, Z. Gao, J. Wang, Decisiontheoretic distributed channel selection for opportunistic spectrum access: strategies, challenges and solutions. IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor. 15, 1689–1713 (2013)
 29.
Y. Xu, J. Wang, Q. Wu, J. Zheng, L. Shen, A. Anpalagan, Dynamic spectrum access in timevarying environment: distributed learning beyond expectation optimization. IEEE Trans. Commun. 65, 5305–5318 (2017)
 30.
N. Qi, W. Wang, M. Xiao et al., A learningbased spectrum access Stackelberg game: friendly jammerassisted communication confrontation. IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol. 70, 700–713 (2021)
 31.
Y. Xu, J. Wang, Q. Wu et al., Opportunistic spectrum access in cognitive radio networks: global optimization using local interaction games. IEEE J. Sel. Top. Signal Process. 6, 180–194 (2011)
 32.
S.P. Boyd, L. Vandenberghe, Convex Optim. (Cambridge University Press, London, 2004)
 33.
J.R. Marden, G. Arslan, J.S. Shamma, Joint strategy fictitious play with inertia for potential games. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 54, 208–220 (2009)
 34.
X. Diao, J. Zheng, Y. Cai, Y. Wu, A. Anpalagan, Fair data allocation and trajectory optimization for UAVassisted mobile edge computing. IEEE Commun. Lett. 23, 2357–2361 (2019)
 35.
X. Diao, J. Zheng, Y. Wu, Y. Cai, A. Anpalagan, Joint trajectory design, task data, and computing resource allocations for NOMAbased and UAVassisted mobile edge computing. IEEE Access 7, 117448–117459 (2019)
 36.
Y. Wang, Z.Y. Ru, K. Wang, P.Q. Huang, Joint deployment and task scheduling optimization for largescale mobile users in multiUAVenabled mobile edge computing. IEEE Trans. Cybern. 50, 3984–3997 (2020)
 37.
H. Xiao, Z. Hu, K. Yang, Y. Du, D. Chen, An energyaware joint routing and task allocation algorithm in MEC systems assisted by multiple UAVs, in 2020 International Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing (IWCMC): 2020 (2020), pp. 1654–1659
 38.
L. Wang, et al., RLbased user association and resource allocation for multiUAV enabled MEC, in 2019 15th International Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing Conference (IWCMC), Tangier, Morocco (2019), pp. 741–746
 39.
W. Liu, Y. Xu, N. Qi, K. Yao, Y. Zhang, W. He, Joint computation offloading and resource allocation in UAV swarms with multiaccess edge computing, in 2020 International Conference on Wireless Communications and Signal Processing (WCSP), Nanjing (2020), pp. 280–285
 40.
X. Wei, Q. Wang, T. Wang, J. Fan, Jammer localization in multihop wireless network: a comprehensive survey. IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor. 19, 765–799 (2017)
 41.
L. Jia, F. Yao, Y. Sun, Y. Niu, Y. Zhu, Bayesian Stackelberg game for antijamming transmission with incomplete information. IEEE Commun. Lett. 20, 1991–1994 (2016)
 42.
H. Xing, L. Liu, J. Xu, A. Nallanathan, Joint task assignment and resource allocation for D2Denabled mobileedge computing. IEEE Trans. Commun. 67, 4193–4207 (2019)
 43.
G. Hu, Y. Jia, Z. Chen, Multiuser computation offloading with D2D for mobile edge computing, in 2018 IEEE Global Communications Conference (GLOBECOM) (2018)
Acknowledgements
Not applicable.
Funding
This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant Nos. 61901517, 61771488, 62001514, and in part by the National Postdoctoral Program for Innovative Talents under Grant BX2021371.
Author information
Affiliations
Contributions
WL contributed in the system model and performed the simulation tests. Besides, WL was a major contributor in writing the manuscript. YX proposed improvements and corrections to the system model and problem formulation. DW assisted in the design of a method of coping with complex optimization problems and provided a lot of meaningful references. HW and XZ assisted simulation experiment. XC participated in the experiment and analysis. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Not applicable.
Consent for publication
The manuscript does not contain any individual person’s data in any form (including individual details, images or videos) and therefore the consent to publish is not applicable to this article.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Liu, W., Xu, Y., Wu, D. et al. Distributed energyefficient and secure offloading in airtoground MEC networks. EURASIP J. Adv. Signal Process. 2021, 71 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13634021007859
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13634021007859
Keywords
 MEC
 Task offloading
 Energyefficient offloading
 Secure offloading