Benchmarking Deep Learning for On-Board Space Applications
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
Benchmarking deep learning algorithms before deploying them in hardware-constrained execution environments, such as imaging satellites, is pivotal in real-life applications. Although a thorough and consistent benchmarking procedure can allow us to estimate the expected operational abilities of the underlying deep model, this topic remains under-researched. This paper tackles this issue and presents an end-to-end benchmarking approach for quantifying the abilities of deep learning algorithms in virtually any kind of on-board space applications. The experimental validation, performed over several state-of-the-art deep models and benchmark datasets, showed that different deep learning techniques may be effectively benchmarked using the standardized approach, which delivers quantifiable performance measures and is highly configurable. We believe that such benchmarking is crucial in delivering ready-to-use on-board artificial intelligence in emerging space applications and should become a standard tool in the deployment chain.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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