Space-ground Fluid AI for 6G Edge Intelligence

Di Zhou; Juan Wen; Kaibin Huang; Min Sheng; Qian Chen; Sijing Ji; Xianhao Chen; Zhanwei Wang

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 15 references

Space-ground Fluid AI for 6G Edge Intelligence

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Space-ground fluid AI turns the predictable motion of satellites into a scheduled migration path for AI models and tasks, so 6G edge services survive handovers without interruption.

desk verdict A useful vision/framework paper whose umbrella concept is worth engaging, but whose 'ensures non-disruptive' central claim outruns the evidence; two of three pillars are sketches and the one simulation does not test the hard weather-dependent case. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.15845 v3 pith:5K4BPRFT submitted 2024-11-24 cs.NI

Qian Chen , Zhanwei Wang , Xianhao Chen , Juan Wen , Di Zhou , Sijing Ji , Min Sheng , Kaibin Huang This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.NI

keywords space-groundintegratednetworksedgeAI6Gfluidsatellitemobilityfederatedlearningmodelmigrationdownloading

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that the very thing that makes satellite edge AI hard, constant orbital motion, can be turned into the mechanism that keeps AI services running. It introduces "space-ground fluid AI," a framework in which AI models and tasks flow horizontally between satellites and vertically between space and ground, scheduled from known ephemeris data rather than reactively repaired after handovers. Three components carry the proposal: fluid learning, a federated-learning variant in which satellites physically carry regional models to new regions like dispersing seeds; fluid inference, which splits a neural network across users, satellites, and ground data centers with early-exit classifiers; and fluid model downloading, which caches and multicasts shared parameter blocks to many users at once. A simulation on CIFAR-10 and MNIST indicates the fluid-learning scheme reaches higher test accuracy per training hour than a ground station-assisted hierarchical scheme or an inter-satellite-link decentralized scheme. The article positions fluid AI as a way to deliver low-latency AI to remote, maritime, aerial, and disaster-stricken areas in 6G.

What carries the argument

The central object is satellite motion itself, treated through ephemeris information as a non-causal, predictable schedule, which turns mobility into a store-carry-forward resource. The paper's named mechanism is "model dispersal" in federated learning, where satellites carry regional models between areas like animals carrying seeds, combined with cascaded split inference and parameter-sharing caching and multicasting. These mechanisms convert orbital movement from a handover problem into a planned migration path for models, tasks, and parameters.

What would settle it

Run the model-dispersal federated learning protocol of Fig. 2 with per-link availability drawn from weather and fading statistics rather than from geometry alone; if the accuracy-versus-training-time curve drops below the ground station-assisted hierarchical baseline, the central claim that predictable mobility alone guarantees non-disruptive fluid learning is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that predictable satellite mobility can be reused as a communication and computing resource instead of being treated only as a source of disruption. Because satellite trajectories and ground tracks repeat, the network topology is known non-causally, which lets the system plan horizontal migration, model or task transfer between satellites, and vertical migration, between ground stations and satellites, ahead of handovers. In fluid learning, a satellite stores a regional model, carries it along its orbit, and mixes it with models from other regions, removing the need for ground stations or inter-satellite laser links for global aggregation. In fluid inference, a deep network is split into head, middle, and tail sub-models deployed on clients, satellites, and data centers, with intermediate classifiers that allow early exit when quality-of-service requirements permit. In fluid model downloading, parameter blocks that are shared across tasks are cached on satellites and multicast so many users receive reusable parameters simultaneously. Together these mechanisms aim at non-disruptive AI service provisioning despite handovers every few minutes.

Load-bearing premise

The framework's schedules assume that the known satellite trajectories make space-ground channel quality predictable enough to plan task and model migrations in advance; the article itself notes that adverse weather can make those links unreliable, and if channel conditions are not reliably predictable from position alone, the migration benefits are not assured.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

AI services over low-Earth-orbit constellations can remain continuous without requiring expensive inter-satellite laser terminals for every aggregation or handover step.
Federated learning over a constellation can train a globally mixed model by having satellites physically carry models between regions, reducing the waiting time and feeder-link load of ground station-assisted hierarchical FL.
Split inference with early exit gives users a controllable accuracy-latency tradeoff, allowing latency-critical tasks to stop at a satellite sub-model instead of traveling to a ground data center.
Parameter-sharing caching and multicasting let a single satellite serve many users' model downloads at once, easing the feeder-link and bandwidth bottleneck.
Deployment planning must account for radiation-induced bit flips, temperature cycling, and battery-limited eclipse periods, and the same orbital predictability can support energy-aware and fault-tolerant scheduling.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The paper's predictability assumption could be stress-tested by combining ephemeris data with weather and interference measurements; if real channel variation dominates, the planned-migration benefits would shrink unless the scheduler adds a reactive layer.
The model-dispersal principle likely generalizes to any network with periodic node trajectories, such as high-altitude platform stations or orbital shells with different inclinations, though the paper demonstrates it only for a Starlink-like LEO constellation.
A testable extension is to quantify how model-dispersal convergence depends on the number of orbital planes and the right ascension of the ascending node offsets between adjacent orbits, since those parameters set how often satellites from different regions meet.
The parameter-sharing multicasting idea could also apply to terrestrial edge caching during peak demand hours, although the paper motivates it specifically for satellite feeder links.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Quick take: if you write about satellite edge AI, this is worth knowing for its fluid AI framing and its model-dispersal FL idea. It is not a results paper. The new thing is the umbrella: treating LEO satellites' predictable orbits as a way to migrate tasks and models horizontally and vertically so handovers don't kill AI services. That is a real architectural idea, and reframing satellite mobility as an asset rather than a nuisance is useful. Credit where due: Section III-A's fluid learning is the most developed, and Fig. 2 shows the proposed scheme beating ground-station hierarchical FL and ISL-assisted decentralized FL on CIFAR-10 and MNIST under non-IID data. The direction is positive.

Soft spots, in order of size. First, central claim: the abstract says 'ensures non-disruptive AI service provisioning.' The mechanism is ephemeris information 'translated into channel predictability.' Topology is predictable; link quality is not fully. Weather, scintillation, and interference are not in ephemeris, and the paper itself admits unreliable links from adverse weather in Sec. III-C-2. The Fig. 2 simulation uses STK geometry but no stochastic link errors or weather model, so it never exercises the failure mode that would break the non-disruption promise. This is a genuine gap, though it matters less if the claim is softened to 'aims to enable'—for a framework paper that is the right fix rather than a fatal flaw. Second, fluid inference and fluid model downloading are described, not evaluated. No derivation, no measurement, no simulation. That is acceptable for a vision article only if labeled as design. Third, most technical machinery is from companion papers: FedMeld [12], Trim-Caching [15], and reusable knowledge multicasting [14]. The self-citation is transparent, but it means a referee cannot fully assess Sections III-A and III-C without reading those papers. Last, the simulation lacks code, seeds, error bars, and full protocol details; it is illustrative, not conclusive.

Who is this for: readers working on 6G satellite edge AI who want a structured agenda and a named framework to anchor their work. I agree with the conditional verdict. It deserves serious peer review, mainly to force the authors to align claims with evidence. I would send it to referees with instructions to have the authors soften 'ensures,' point to the companion papers for protocol details, and add an explicit note on channel predictability versus weather.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper advocates a framework called space-ground fluid AI for integrating edge AI with space-ground integrated networks (SGINs). The central claim is that the predictive mobility of satellites enables horizontal and vertical migration of AI tasks and models, ensuring non-disruptive AI service provisioning despite satellite handovers. The framework has three components: fluid learning, based on a model-dispersal federated learning scheme; fluid inference, based on cascading model blocks with early exiting; and fluid model downloading, based on parameter-sharing caching and multicasting. The only quantitative evaluation is a simulation in Fig. 2 comparing the proposed learning scheme with ground-station-assisted hierarchical FL and ISL-assisted decentralized FL on CIFAR-10 and MNIST. The paper also discusses deployment considerations and future directions.

Significance. If the framework is made rigorous, it would be a useful conceptual contribution for 6G edge intelligence, particularly in converting satellite mobility from a challenge into an asset and in avoiding expensive inter-satellite links for model aggregation. The model-dispersal FL idea is concrete, the use of STK-based geometry is appropriate, and the paper explicitly identifies real constraints such as radiation, power, and link impairments. However, the article provides quantitative support for only one of the three components, and that support is a single underspecified simulation without code or error bars. The paper's stronger wording about ensuring non-disruptive service is not matched by the presented evidence.

major comments (4)

[Abstract; II-B-1; III-C-2] The central guarantee of non-disruptive AI service provisioning rests on the claim in Section II-B-1 that ephemeris information can be translated into channel predictability, yet Section III-C-2 itself lists unreliable transmission links caused by adverse weather conditions as a feature of satellite networks, and the two are not reconciled. Weather, scintillation, and interference are not determined by orbital position alone, so a migration scheduled from ephemeris data may coincide with a faded link. The Fig. 2 simulation does not include stochastic link impairments or weather effects, so it does not exercise this failure mode. Please incorporate weather-aware channel prediction into the framework or explicitly qualify the non-disruption claim to nominal link conditions.
[Fig. 2; Section III-A] The only quantitative support in the paper is under-specified. The description reports ResNet-18 on CIFAR-10 and MNIST, eight clusters with five clients each, three labels per cluster, and 200 and 80 epochs, but it omits the learning rate, batch size, number of global rounds, client selection and dropout handling details, and exact STK constellation parameters. There are no error bars or multiple seeds, and no code is provided. Without these details the comparison with ground-station-assisted hierarchical FL and ISL-assisted decentralized FL is not reproducible, so the statement that the proposed scheme achieves the highest test accuracy within a relatively short training time is stronger than the evidence supports.
[Sections III-B and III-C] Fluid inference and fluid model downloading are presented only as design sketches. No derivation, simulation, or measurement is given for the claimed accuracy-latency tradeoff of early exiting, the task-completion gains of horizontal and vertical migration, the cache-hit improvements of parameter-sharing caching, or the multicast gains of parameter sharing. Because these two components are presented as key techniques of the framework, the article should either add a proof-of-concept for at least one of them or explicitly state that these are open design proposals rather than validated techniques.
[Sections III-A, III-C-1, III-C-2] The technical core is repeatedly delegated to companion papers [12], [14], and [15], including the model-dispersal scheme in Fig. 2 and the caching and multicasting mechanisms. As a result, a reader cannot independently verify the framework's novelty or correctness from this manuscript alone. Please either provide enough detail for a self-contained technical statement or reposition the paper as a vision or overview article whose contribution is the integration of ideas rather than the validation of individual techniques.

minor comments (4)

[Section I] The text renders 'unmanned aerial vehicle (UA V)' with a space before 'V'; it should be 'UAV'.
[Reference [1]] The author name 'Y . Shi' contains a spurious space before the period; it should be 'Y. Shi'.
[Section IV-B] The future-direction paragraph says the propagation delay is 'several milliseconds', but Section I gives an average round-trip time of 50 ms; please make the one-way versus round-trip distinction explicit.
[Section IV-A] The statement that radiation-induced failures account for approximately 40% of satellite failures cites 'Studies have shown' but provides no reference; please add a citation or remove the specific percentage.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Core fluid-AI components are adopted from the authors' own prior FedMeld/TrimCaching/reusable-broadcasting papers; the framework's validation leans on self-citation rather than independent derivation.

self citation load bearing [Section III-A (Space-ground Fluid Learning), Fig. 2]
"This allows for model dispersal across different areas via satellite carriers without requiring the assistance of ISLs or ground stations—analogous to seed dispersal via animals [12]. ... The results show that the proposed scheme achieves the highest test accuracy within a relatively short training time. Furthermore, it avoids using feeder links or ISLs for model aggregation or exchange, thereby reducing communication overhead. A comparison of the communication costs between the proposed algorithm and existing approaches can be found in our previous work [12]."

The 'fluid learning' component is exactly the FedMeld model-dispersal scheme from an overlapping-author preprint [12]. Its two advertised benefits, highest accuracy within short training time and low communication overhead, are supported by the Fig. 2 simulation and by a cost comparison explicitly deferred to [12]. The load-bearing evidence for the first pillar of the framework therefore reduces to the same authors' own prior work, which is not machine-checked, code-reproduced in this article, or independently falsified here.
self citation load bearing [Section III-C-1 and III-C-2 (Space-ground Fluid Model Downloading)]
"Building on this concept, rather than caching all the parameters of each model on the satellites, we can allow each satellite to cache only certain parameter blocks of different models, while neighboring satellites can migrate some layer parameters via laser ISLs when necessary... The mobility patterns of satellite nodes and the hierarchical space–ground architecture distinguish the optimal caching scheme from its terrestrial counterparts, such as in our previous work [15]."

The second and third pillars of fluid AI, parameter-sharing caching and multicasting, are explicitly attributed to overlapping-author prior works [15] and [14]. The distinction from terrestrial caching is deferred to [15], and multicasting is described as 'can be adopted [14].' The technical content and its validation thus live in the authors' other papers, while this article supplies the umbrella framing. This is load-bearing self-citation for the model-downloading component rather than an independent derivation or verification.

full rationale

This is a magazine-style framework paper, not a theorem derivation, so the most aggressive circularity categories do not apply: there are no fitted parameters renamed as predictions, no imported uniqueness theorem, and no ansatz smuggled in solely via citation. The self-citation pattern is nonetheless load-bearing. Section III-A's model-dispersal FL scheme is FedMeld [12], and its accuracy/communication-cost support is largely deferred to that overlapping-author preprint; Section III-C's caching and multicasting schemes come from [15] and [14], respectively, also overlapping-author works. These citations are not machine-checked, code-reproduced in this article, or externally falsified here, so the evidence for the framework's three components is substantially self-referential. The abstract's non-disruptive-provisioning claim also rests on the Section II-B-1 assumption that ephemeris information translates into channel predictability, an assumption the paper itself qualifies in Section III-C-2 by mentioning weather-induced unreliable links; this is a correctness risk rather than a circularity. The umbrella concept has some independent organizational content and the Fig. 2 simulation is presented, but the simulation evaluates the same FedMeld scheme, so the moderate score reflects a central claim whose component-level support is largely self-citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The framework introduces no new physical entities, parameters fitted to data, or invented observables. The intellectual burden rests on assumptions about channel predictability, onboard resources, parameter sharing, and the benefit of model dispersal. Each is plausible but none is rigorously established or independently benchmarked in this article.

free parameters (1)

Simulation workload configuration = 8 clusters, 5 clients per cluster, 3 labels per cluster, ResNet-18, CIFAR-10 with 200 epochs, MNIST with 80 epochs
These values are chosen by hand for the Fig. 2 comparison and are not justified by theory or systematic sweeps. They directly affect the reported accuracy versus convergence time result.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Ephemeris information yields non-causal knowledge of topology and channel predictability.
Section II-B-1 states this as a benefit of fluid AI, but channel quality also depends on weather, interference, and beam geometry. No evidence is provided that topology alone gives reliable channel prediction.
domain assumption Satellites have sufficient computing and storage resources for training, inference, and model caching.
Section I cites '60+ Linux computers' per Starlink satellite, yet Section IV-A later notes radiation, thermal, and power constraints that may curtail these capabilities in practice.
domain assumption A significant proportion of deep neural network parameters can be shared across different tasks.
Section III-C-1 grounds the caching and multicasting designs on parameter sharing across models, citing [14] and [15], without quantifying sharing rates for representative task families.
domain assumption Store-carry-and-mix of models across regions improves federated learning convergence.
Section III-A proposes model-dispersal FL; Fig. 2 supports it in one non-IID setting, but the general claim is borrowed from the companion paper [12].

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Space-ground Fluid AI for 6G Edge Intelligence." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5K4BPRFT

@misc{pith2026241115845,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Space-ground Fluid AI for 6G Edge Intelligence},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5K4BPRFT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.15845}
}

read the original abstract

Edge artificial intelligence (AI) and space-ground integrated networks (SGINs) are two main usage scenarios of the sixth-generation (6G) mobile networks. Edge AI supports pervasive low-latency AI services to users, whereas SGINs provide digital services to spatial, aerial, maritime, and ground users. This article advocates the integration of the two technologies by extending edge AI to space, thereby delivering AI services to every corner of the planet. Beyond a simple combination, our novel framework, called space-ground fluid AI, leverages the predictive mobility of satellites to facilitate fluid horizontal and vertical task/model migration in the networks. This ensures non-disruptive AI service provisioning in spite of the high mobility of satellite servers. The aim of the article is to introduce the (space-ground) fluid AI technology. First, we outline the network architecture and unique characteristics of fluid AI. Then, we delve into three key components of fluid AI, i.e., fluid learning, fluid inference, and fluid model downloading. They share the common feature of coping with satellite mobility via inter-satellite and space-ground cooperation to support AI services. Finally, we discuss the considerations for the real-world deployment of fluid AI and identify further research opportunities.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.15845 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Infrastructure-free “model-dispersal” FL scheme. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Cascading inference framework in fluid AI systems. This adaptive [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Parameter-sharing caching scheme for fluid AI systems. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

15 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

[12]

FedMeld: A model-dispersal feder- ated learning framework for space-ground integrated networks,

Q. Chen, X. Chen, and K. Huang, “FedMeld: A model-dispersal feder- ated learning framework for space-ground integrated networks,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.17231, 2024

arXiv 2024
[15]

Trim- Caching: Parameter-sharing edge caching for AI model downloading,

G. Qu, Z. Lin, Q. Chen, J. Li, F. Liu, X. Chen, and K. Huang, “Trim- Caching: Parameter-sharing edge caching for AI model downloading,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.14204, 2024

arXiv 2024
[14]

Efficient multiuser AI downloading via reusable knowledge broadcasting,

H. Wu, Q. Zeng, and K. Huang, “Efficient multiuser AI downloading via reusable knowledge broadcasting,”IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., pp. 1–1, 2024

work page 2024
[1]

Edge artificial intelligence for 6G: Vision, enabling technologies, and applications,

K. B. Letaief, Y . Shi, J. Lu, and J. Lu, “Edge artificial intelligence for 6G: Vision, enabling technologies, and applications,”IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 5–36, 2022

work page 2022
[2]

Very- low-earth-orbit satellite networks for 6G,

H. Luo, X. Shi, Y . Chen, X. Meng, Z. Feiran, and M. Mayer, “Very- low-earth-orbit satellite networks for 6G,” Communications of HUAWEI RESEARCH, 2022

work page 2022
[3]

SpaceX: We’ve launched 32,000 linux computers into space for starlink internet,

SpaceX, “SpaceX: We’ve launched 32,000 linux computers into space for starlink internet,” Jun. 2020. [Online]. Available: https: //www.zdnet.com/article/

work page 2020
[4]

Multi-tier hybrid offloading for computation-aware IoT applications in civil aircraft- augmented SAGIN,

Q. Chen, W. Meng, T. Q. S. Quek, and S. Chen, “Multi-tier hybrid offloading for computation-aware IoT applications in civil aircraft- augmented SAGIN,”IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 399–417, Feb. 2023

work page 2023
[5]

Space/aerial-assisted computing offloading for IoT applications: A learning-based approach,

N. Cheng, F. Lyu, W. Quan, C. Zhou, H. He, W. Shi, and X. Shen, “Space/aerial-assisted computing offloading for IoT applications: A learning-based approach,”IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 37, no. 5, pp. 1117–1129, Nov. 2019

work page 2019

Show all 15 references

[6]

Olive branch learning: A topology-aware federated learning framework for space-air- ground integrated network,

Q. Fang, Z. Zhai, S. Yu, Q. Wu, X. Gong, and X. Chen, “Olive branch learning: A topology-aware federated learning framework for space-air- ground integrated network,”IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 22, no. 7, pp. 4534–4551, Jul. 2023

2023
[7]

LEOEdge: A satellite-ground cooperation platform for the AI inference in large LEO constellation,

S. Yao, Y . Lin, M. Wang, K. Xu, M. Xu, C. Xu, and H. Zhang, “LEOEdge: A satellite-ground cooperation platform for the AI inference in large LEO constellation,”IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 36–50, Jan. 2025

2025
[8]

A tractable approach for predicting pass duration in dense satellite networks,

A. Al-Hourani, “A tractable approach for predicting pass duration in dense satellite networks,”IEEE Commun. Lett., vol. 25, no. 8, pp. 2698– 2702, 2021

2021
[9]

The dream of affordable Internet access for everyone is getting closer,

OneWeb, “The dream of affordable Internet access for everyone is getting closer,” May 2017. [Online]. Available: https://goo.gl/eTkRnL

2017
[10]

Federated learning in satellite constellations,

B. Matthiesen, N. Razmi, I. Leyva-Mayorga, A. Dekorsy, and P. Popovski, “Federated learning in satellite constellations,”IEEE Netw., vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 232–239, Mar. 2024

2024
[11]

Optical comms’ ecosystem setting up for the technological breakthrough,

X. Lansel, “Optical comms’ ecosystem setting up for the technological breakthrough,” Optical satellite communications, 2023

2023
[13]

Progressive feature transmission for split classification at the wireless edge,

Q. Lan, Q. Zeng, P. Popovski, D. G ¨und¨uz, and K. Huang, “Progressive feature transmission for split classification at the wireless edge,”IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 22, no. 6, pp. 3837–3852, Jun. 2023

2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [12]

FedMeld: A model-dispersal feder- ated learning framework for space-ground integrated networks,

Q. Chen, X. Chen, and K. Huang, “FedMeld: A model-dispersal feder- ated learning framework for space-ground integrated networks,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.17231, 2024

arXiv 2024

[2] [15]

Trim- Caching: Parameter-sharing edge caching for AI model downloading,

G. Qu, Z. Lin, Q. Chen, J. Li, F. Liu, X. Chen, and K. Huang, “Trim- Caching: Parameter-sharing edge caching for AI model downloading,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.14204, 2024

arXiv 2024

[3] [14]

Efficient multiuser AI downloading via reusable knowledge broadcasting,

H. Wu, Q. Zeng, and K. Huang, “Efficient multiuser AI downloading via reusable knowledge broadcasting,”IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., pp. 1–1, 2024

work page 2024

[4] [1]

Edge artificial intelligence for 6G: Vision, enabling technologies, and applications,

K. B. Letaief, Y . Shi, J. Lu, and J. Lu, “Edge artificial intelligence for 6G: Vision, enabling technologies, and applications,”IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 5–36, 2022

work page 2022

[5] [2]

Very- low-earth-orbit satellite networks for 6G,

H. Luo, X. Shi, Y . Chen, X. Meng, Z. Feiran, and M. Mayer, “Very- low-earth-orbit satellite networks for 6G,” Communications of HUAWEI RESEARCH, 2022

work page 2022

[6] [3]

SpaceX: We’ve launched 32,000 linux computers into space for starlink internet,

SpaceX, “SpaceX: We’ve launched 32,000 linux computers into space for starlink internet,” Jun. 2020. [Online]. Available: https: //www.zdnet.com/article/

work page 2020

[7] [4]

Multi-tier hybrid offloading for computation-aware IoT applications in civil aircraft- augmented SAGIN,

Q. Chen, W. Meng, T. Q. S. Quek, and S. Chen, “Multi-tier hybrid offloading for computation-aware IoT applications in civil aircraft- augmented SAGIN,”IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 399–417, Feb. 2023

work page 2023

[8] [5]

Space/aerial-assisted computing offloading for IoT applications: A learning-based approach,

N. Cheng, F. Lyu, W. Quan, C. Zhou, H. He, W. Shi, and X. Shen, “Space/aerial-assisted computing offloading for IoT applications: A learning-based approach,”IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 37, no. 5, pp. 1117–1129, Nov. 2019

work page 2019