MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Reinforcement Learning Based Control Domain Division in LEO Satellite Networks

2023· article· en· W4393141659 on OpenAlexaff
Feilong Tang, Xue Li, Long Chen, Jiacheng Liu, Ming Gao, Yanqin Yang, Wenchao Xu, Heteng Zhang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSatellite Communication Systems
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsReinforcement learningComputer scienceDivision (mathematics)SatelliteControl (management)Artificial intelligenceDomain (mathematical analysis)EngineeringMathematicsArithmeticAerospace engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The performance of SDN-based LEO satellite networks significantly depends on the control domain division approaches. The dynamical topology in LEO networks results in the time-varying delay for network management. Therefore, the control domain division is very challenging and should be dynamical. In this paper, we propose a control domain division approach based on reinforcement learning (RL), which aims at reducing the average management delay of controllers during the control period, and as well as minimizing the number of control domain handovers. Firstly, we analyze the factors that need to be paid attention to in controller deployment, such as delay, load and controller switching cost, and formulate the controller deployment. By relaxing the constraints, we prove that the problem is NP-hard. Secondly, we propose an approach that considers future motion trajectory based on reinforcement learning (FMT _ RL) to deploy controllers. Since the dimension of the neural network in reinforcement learning is fixed, we use the improved K-Means algorithm to select the set of mechanisms to determine the dimension of the neural network. Particularly, in order to obtain the node composition control domain, the observation including both future motion trajectory and history controller selection information are input into the neural network to calculate the control domain division results. The experimental results demonstrate that our approach significantly outperforms related approaches, with better stability and average control cost.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSatellite Communication SystemsFrench-language works237,207