Skip to content
Open access

TLQ-Geo: a two-level q-learning-based geographic routing protocol for flying ad hoc networks

Aug 2026 · Journal of King Saud University: Computer and Information Sciences · Vol 38 · 0 citations · 42 references

Abstract

In flying ad hoc networks (FANETs), high node mobility, dynamic topology, and limited resources, such as energy and bandwidth, lead to unstable links and short-lived routes. In such an environment, although Q-learning-based routing methods are adaptable, they face serious challenges in practice due to large state space, high computational load, and slow convergence. To address these issues, this paper proposes a two-level Q-learning-based geographic routing protocol called TLQ-Geo for FANETs. This protocol integrates hierarchical decision-making with adaptive reinforcement learning. TLQ-Geo divides the routing process into two layers: the guided region selection (GRS) layer and the Q-learning-based routing (QRL) layer. The GRS layer determines a bounded search corridor between the source and the destination using a chain of intelligent decision points (IDPs), while the QRL layer performs distributed path optimization within this virtual corridor via Q-learning. By restricting the state space to the region guided by IDPs, TLQ-Geo significantly reduces convergence time and computational overhead. In addition, a dynamic inter-layer feedback mechanism periodically evaluates the performance of each IDP chain and adaptively reconfigures it under topology variations. Extensive simulations demonstrate that when the node density varies, TLQ-Geo achieves higher network lifespan (approximately 4.51%), improved packet delivery ratio (about 1.25%), lower routing overhead (around 3.38%), and better energy efficiency (about 20.79%), while the delay increases by about 13.84%, compared to three basic routing methods, namely QRCF, QRF, and QFAN. Also, when the node speed changes, TLQ-Geo yields better network lifespan (approximately 5.46%), higher packet delivery ratio (about 1.69%), lower overhead (around 2.80%), and better energy efficiency (about 6.42%), while the delay increases by about 9.09%.

Read PDF