MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Laser Inter-Satellite Link Setup Delay: Quantification, Impact, and Tolerable Value

2023· article· en· W4376480719 on OpenAlexaff
Dhiraj Bhattacharjee, Aizaz U. Chaudhry, Halim Yanıkömeroğlu, Peng Hu, Guillaume Lamontagne

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOptical Wireless Communication Technologies
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council CanadaCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSatelliteLaserLink (geometry)Computer scienceRemote sensingAerospace engineeringComputer networkOpticsPhysicsGeologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dynamic laser inter-satellite links (LISLs) provide the flexibility of connecting a pair of satellites as required (dynamically) while static LISLs need to be active continuously between the energy-constrained satellites. However, due to the LISL establishment time (termed herein as LISL setup delay) being in the order of seconds, realizing dynamic LISLs is currently unfeasible. Towards the realization of dynamic LISLs, we first study the quantification of LISL setup delay; then we calculate the end-to-end latency of a free-space optical satellite network (FSOSN) with the LISL setup delay; subsequently, we analyze the impact of LISL setup delay on the end-to-end latency of the FSOSN. We also provide design guidelines for the laser communication terminal manufacturers in the form of maximum tolerable value of LISL setup delay for which the FSOSN based on Starlink’s Phase I satellite constellation will be meaningful to use for low-latency long-distance inter-continental data communications.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.245 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicOptical Wireless Communication TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207