Identifying Optimal Launch Sites of High-Altitude Latex-Balloons using Bayesian Optimisation for the Task of Station-Keeping
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Station-keeping tasks for high-altitude balloons show promise in areas such as ecological surveys, atmospheric analysis, and communication relays. However, identifying the optimal time and position to launch a latex high-altitude balloon is still a challenging and multifaceted problem. For example, tasks such as forest fire tracking place geometric constraints on the launch location of the balloon. Furthermore, identifying the most optimal location also heavily depends on atmospheric conditions. We first illustrate how reinforcement learning-based controllers, frequently used for station-keeping tasks, can exploit the environment. This exploitation can degrade performance on unseen weather patterns and affect station-keeping performance when identifying an optimal launch configuration. Valuing all states equally in the region, the agent exploits the region’s geometry by flying near the edge, leading to risky behaviours. We propose a modification which compensates for this exploitation and finds this leads to, on average, higher steps within the target region on unseen data. Then, we illustrate how Bayesian Optimisation (BO) can identify the optimal launch location to perform station-keeping tasks, maximising the return from a given rollout. We show BO can find this launch location in fewer steps compared to other optimisation methods. Results indicate that, surprisingly, the most optimal location to launch from is not commonly within the target region. Please find further information about our project at https://sites.google.com/view/bo-lauch-balloon/.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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 it