MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4376615795 · doi:10.1002/sat.1482

Machine Learning and Deep Learning powered satellite communications: Enabling technologies, applications, open challenges, and future research directions

2023· article· en· W4376615795 on OpenAlexaff
A.B. Bhattacharyya, Shvetha M. Nambiar, Amogh Gyaneshwar, Utkarsh Chadha, Kathiravan Srinivasan

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Satellite Communications and Networking · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSatellite Communication Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceCommunications satelliteSatelliteTelecommunicationsOpen researchPopularityConstellationDeep learningNASA Deep Space NetworkArtificial intelligenceSpacecraftWorld Wide WebAerospace engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary The recent wave of creating an interconnected world through satellites has renewed interest in satellite communications. Private and government‐funded space agencies are making advancements in the creation of satellite constellations, and the introduction of 5G has brought a new focus to a fully connected world. Satellites are the proposed solutions for establishing high throughput and low latency links to remote, hard‐to‐reach areas. This has caused the injection of many satellites in Earth's orbit, which has caused many discrepancies. There is a need to establish highly adaptive and flexible satellite systems to overcome this. Machine Learning (ML) and Deep Learning (DL) have gained much popularity when it comes to communication systems. This review extensively provides insight into ML and DL's utilization in satellite communications. This review covers how satellite communication subsystems and other satellite system applications can be implemented through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and the ongoing open challenges and future directions.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablehigh
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Other designhigh
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.989
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.109
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.254 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designNot applicable · Other design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations34
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Satellite Communications and NetworkingSame topicSatellite Communication SystemsFrench-language works237,207