Joint Observation and Transmission Scheduling in Agile Satellite Networks
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Compared with traditional observation satellites, agile earth observation satellites are capable of prolonging observation time windows (OTWs) for targets, which significantly alleviates observation conflicts, thereby facilitating imaging data collection. However, it also leads to more uncertainties in determining the start time to image targets within these longer OTWs for an agile satellite network (ASN) to collect imaging data. Furthermore, these collected data are offloaded only within short transmission time windows between data collectors and data sinks, thus resulting in a transmission scheduling problem. Toward this end, this paper investigates joint observation and transmission scheduling in ASNs, aiming at accommodating more imaging data to be collected and offloaded successfully. Specifically, we formulate the studied problem as integer linear programming (ILP) to maximize the weighted sum of scheduled imaging tasks. Then, we explore the hidden structure of this ILP and transform it into a special framework, which can be solved efficiently through semidefinite relaxation (SDR). To reduce computation complexity, we further propose a fast yet efficient algorithm by combining the advantages of the devised SDR method and a genetic algorithm with special population initialization. Finally, simulation results demonstrate that the proposed algorithm can significantly increase the weighted sum of scheduled tasks.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it