MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415909459 · doi:10.2514/1.a36400

Enhancing Satellite Data Integrity Through Online Learning for Memory Dump Scheduling

2025· article· en· W4415909459 on OpenAlexaff
Jonathan Pergoli, Tommaso Cesari, Michele Maestrini, Pierluigi Di Lizia

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Spacecraft and Rockets · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSatellite Communication Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScheduling (production processes)TelemetryWorkloadData lossData integrityKey (lock)SpacecraftGround stationOnline algorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Managing data downlinks through memory dump scheduling in spacecraft operations is paramount to maintaining data integrity and keeping high mission performance. Traditional static scheduling methods lack the flexibility to adapt to random events and place a significant amount of manual workload on operators. Although machine learning techniques have shown promise, they generally require large datasets and high computational resources, both of which can be limited in practice. This paper proposes to optimize time offsets for memory dump using online learning techniques, specifically, leveraging follow-the-leader strategies. These lightweight sequential algorithms are based on the intuitive idea of choosing offsets with the currently best historical performance and are known to be optimal under realistic assumptions. By integrating real-time telemetry feedback and online learning, the proposed method dynamically adjusts memory dump timings to account for variations in spacecraft operations and ground station availability, reducing the probability of data loss due to memory saturation or ground station outage. The proposed algorithm is tested using data coming from live telemetry within the mission planning system of Sentinel-6A, demonstrating its effectiveness in optimizing memory dump by showing a remarkable improvement in data key performance index. The algorithm achieved an 86% reduction in data loss relative to the loss experienced in the real-world scenario.

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)0.005
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.270 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Spacecraft and RocketsSame topicSatellite Communication SystemsFrench-language works237,207