Post-Disaster Communications: Enabling Technologies, Architectures, and Open Challenges
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The number of disasters has increased over the past decade where these calamities significantly affect the functionality of communication networks. In the context of 6G, airborne and spaceborne networks offer hope in disaster recovery to serve the underserved and to be resilient in calamities. Therefore, this paper surveys the state-of-the-art literature on post-disaster wireless communication networks and provides insights for the future establishment of such networks. In particular, we first give an overview of the works investigating the general procedures and strategies for counteracting any large-scale disasters. Then, we present the possible technological solutions for post-disaster communications, such as the recovery of the terrestrial infrastructure, installing aerial networks, and using spaceborne networks. Afterward, we shed light on the technological aspects of post-disaster networks, primarily the physical and networking issues. We present the literature on channel modeling, coverage and capacity, radio resource management, localization, and energy efficiency in the physical layer and discuss the integrated space-air-ground architectures, routing, delay-tolerant/software-defined networks, and edge computing in the networking layer. This paper also presents interesting simulation results which can provide practical guidelines about the deployment of ad hoc network architectures in emergency scenarios. Finally, we present several promising research directions, namely backhauling, placement optimization of aerial base stations, and the mobility-related aspects that come into play when deploying aerial networks, such as planning their trajectories and the consequent handovers.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.006 | 0.023 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".