Link Budget Analysis for Reconfigurable Smart Surfaces in Aerial Platforms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Non-terrestrial networks, including Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), High Altitude Platform Station (HAPS) and Low Earth Orbiting (LEO) satellites, are expected to have a pivotal role in the sixth generation wireless networks. With their inherent features such as flexible placement, wide footprint, and preferred channel conditions, they can tackle several challenges in current terrestrial networks. However, their successful and widespread adoption relies on energy-efficient on-board communication systems. In this context, the integration of Reconfigurable Smart Surfaces (RSS) into aerial platforms is envisioned as a key enabler of energy-efficient and cost-effective deployments of aerial platforms. Indeed, RSS consist of low-cost reflectors capable of smartly directing signals in a nearly passive way. We investigate in this paper the link budget of RSS-assisted communications under the two discussed RSS reflection paradigms in the literature, namely the specular and the scattering reflection paradigm types. Specifically, we analyze the characteristics of RSS-equipped aerial platforms and compare their communication performance with that of RSS-assisted terrestrial networks, using standardized channel models. In addition, we derive the optimal aerial platforms placements under both reflection paradigms. The obtained results provide important insights for the design of RSS-assisted communications. For instance, given that a HAPS has a large RSS surface, it provides superior link budget performance in most studied scenarios. In contrast, the limited RSS area on UAVs and the large propagation loss in LEO satellite communications make them unfavorable candidates for supporting terrestrial users. Finally, the optimal location of the RSS-equipped platform may depend on the platform’s altitude, coverage footprint, and type of environment.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".