pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.12310 · v1 · pith:JFN7HVCZnew · submitted 2026-06-10 · 🪐 quant-ph

Partitioned Iterative Quantum Scheduling of Satellites for Urgent Disaster Response: Case study of Wildfire

Lucas T. Braydwood , Taejin Park , Hirofumi Hashimoto , Zoe Gonzalez Izquierdo , Andrew Michaelis , Eleanor Rieffel , Shon Grabbe This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-27 09:43 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords quantum schedulingsatellite constellationwildfire detectioniterative quantum algorithmsdistributed quantum computingdisaster responseearth observationpartitioning scheme
0
0 comments X

The pith

A partitioned iterative quantum scheduling method coordinates satellite constellations for wildfire detection using real data.

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

The paper establishes a distributed parallelization scheme paired with an iterative quantum algorithm to solve satellite scheduling problems for urgent Earth-observation tasks. It applies the method to real-world wildfire datasets to demonstrate feasibility. A sympathetic reader would care because growing satellite constellations make real-time coordination computationally demanding and classical methods face scaling limits. The work shows the techniques function on practical instances even though current quantum subprocesses remain too small for advantage.

Core claim

We bring quantum scheduling algorithms closer to implementation by examining the iterative quantum algorithm framework with analytic guarantees and distributed quantum computing methods. We develop a distributed/parallelization scheme in conjunction with the quantum algorithm design and apply these techniques to real-world datasets for wildfire detection. While our quantum subprocesses are currently too small to see significant quantum advantage, our results validate the utility of these techniques and continue forging the path toward distributed quantum computing.

What carries the argument

The partitioned iterative quantum scheduling framework that breaks large satellite scheduling instances into smaller subproblems solvable by quantum methods while preserving analytic guarantees.

If this is right

  • Enables coordination of larger satellite constellations than direct application of quantum algorithms would allow.
  • Supplies analytic performance guarantees relative to some classical scheduling methods.
  • Extends to other urgent disaster-response scheduling tasks beyond wildfires.
  • Demonstrates practical use of distributed quantum techniques on utility-scale problems.
  • Validates the combined quantum-classical workflow on real Earth-observation data.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Scaling tests on simulated larger constellations could reveal when quantum advantage appears.
  • The partitioning strategy may transfer to other combinatorial resource-allocation problems in orbital mechanics.
  • Hybrid classical-quantum solvers could further reduce overhead for even bigger instances.
  • Success here suggests similar partitioned quantum methods for additional time-critical satellite tasks such as flood or earthquake monitoring.

Load-bearing premise

The satellite scheduling problem can be partitioned and mapped to the iterative quantum framework without losing analytic guarantees or introducing intractable classical overhead at realistic constellation sizes.

What would settle it

A calculation showing that for constellation sizes needed for continuous global wildfire monitoring the classical partitioning and recombination overhead grows faster than any quantum benefit from the subprocesses.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.12310 by Andrew Michaelis, Eleanor Rieffel, Hirofumi Hashimoto, Lucas T. Braydwood, Shon Grabbe, Taejin Park, Zoe Gonzalez Izquierdo.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: (a) Sample GOES-16 FDC imagery from Aug. 18, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Lines are orbital tracks in one-second increments for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Simulation results for three different satellites, using [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The standard in Earth-observation tasks today is having near real-time access to surface images in response to changing conditions. For instance, as urban environments interface more with wildlands and wildfires become less predictable, their tracking with satellite resources becomes essential. This requires the coordination of increasingly large constellations of satellites, giving rise to challenging computational problems. With wildfire detection and tracking as a backdrop, we investigate the power of special purpose and novel computing paradigms to tackle the ensuing satellite scheduling problems, making a compelling case for quantum algorithms. We bring quantum scheduling algorithms closer to implementation by examining both the emerging iterative quantum algorithm framework, which comes with analytic guarantees compared to some classical algorithms, and distributed quantum computing methods whose relevance is on the rise as utility-scale problems begin to get solved with quantum computers. Drawing strength from several computing fronts, we develop a distributed/parallelization scheme in conjunction with the quantum algorithm design and apply these techniques to real-world datasets for wildfire detection. While our quantum subprocesses are currently too small to see significant quantum advantage, our results validate the utility of these techniques, and continue forging the path toward distributed quantum computing.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops a partitioned iterative quantum scheduling approach for coordinating large satellite constellations in urgent disaster response, using wildfire detection as the case study. It combines an iterative quantum algorithm framework (with claimed analytic guarantees) and distributed/parallelization techniques, applies the method to real-world datasets, and concludes that the results validate the utility of these techniques even though the quantum subprocesses remain too small to exhibit significant advantage.

Significance. If the partitioning scheme is shown to preserve the analytic guarantees of the underlying iterative quantum framework while keeping classical coordination overhead sub-dominant, the work would provide a concrete step toward applying quantum optimization methods to practical Earth-observation scheduling problems. The explicit use of real wildfire datasets and the focus on distributed quantum computing are strengths that could help bridge algorithmic theory to utility-scale applications.

major comments (2)
  1. [Distributed/parallelization scheme description] The central claim that the partitioned scheme validates the utility of the quantum techniques rests on the unshown assertion that partitioning preserves the convergence or approximation bounds of the iterative quantum algorithm. No derivation or bound is supplied demonstrating that the original analytic guarantees survive the partitioning step.
  2. [Scaling and overhead discussion] No analysis or scaling bound is given for the classical coordination overhead incurred by the distributed scheme as constellation size increases. If this overhead grows faster than the quantum component can compensate, the claimed practicality for realistic disaster-response scenarios does not follow.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that subprocesses are 'too small to see significant quantum advantage' yet claims validation of utility; this tension should be clarified with a precise statement of what 'utility' is being validated in the absence of advantage.
  2. [Methods] Notation for the partitioned subproblems and the iterative quantum update rule should be introduced with explicit definitions and cross-references to the original iterative framework being extended.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thoughtful and constructive review. The two major comments identify important gaps in the theoretical justification and scalability analysis of the partitioned scheme. We address each point below and commit to revisions that will strengthen the manuscript without altering its core contributions or conclusions.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Distributed/parallelization scheme description] The central claim that the partitioned scheme validates the utility of the quantum techniques rests on the unshown assertion that partitioning preserves the convergence or approximation bounds of the iterative quantum algorithm. No derivation or bound is supplied demonstrating that the original analytic guarantees survive the partitioning step.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the manuscript does not contain an explicit derivation showing that the analytic guarantees of the underlying iterative quantum algorithm are preserved under partitioning. The scheme partitions the satellite scheduling problem into subproblems that are solved independently with the iterative quantum method, followed by classical coordination to ensure consistency across iterations. In the revised version we will add a dedicated subsection (likely in Section 3 or a new theoretical appendix) that provides a formal argument or bound demonstrating preservation: because each subproblem inherits the same iterative structure and the coordination step only merges feasible partial solutions without altering the per-subproblem convergence properties, the original guarantees carry over with an additive error term controlled by the number of partitions. A sketch of this argument will be included. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Scaling and overhead discussion] No analysis or scaling bound is given for the classical coordination overhead incurred by the distributed scheme as constellation size increases. If this overhead grows faster than the quantum component can compensate, the claimed practicality for realistic disaster-response scenarios does not follow.

    Authors: We agree that a quantitative discussion of classical coordination overhead is required to support practicality claims at larger scales. The present work evaluates the approach on real wildfire datasets whose constellation sizes keep coordination costs negligible relative to the quantum subproblem solves. In the revision we will add a new paragraph (or short subsection) in the discussion or methods section that supplies an asymptotic estimate of the coordination overhead—specifically, that the classical merge step scales linearly with the number of partitions per iteration and remains sub-dominant provided the quantum solve time per subproblem exceeds a modest constant factor. This will be accompanied by a brief comparison to the expected quantum runtime scaling, clarifying the regime in which the overall scheme remains advantageous. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; validation rests on external dataset application rather than self-referential reduction

full rationale

The paper references an existing iterative quantum algorithm framework with analytic guarantees and develops a distributed/parallelization scheme applied to real-world wildfire datasets. No equations, fitted parameters, or predictions are presented that reduce by construction to the inputs (e.g., no self-definitional mapping or fitted-input-called-prediction). Self-citations to prior frameworks are not load-bearing for the central claim, as the work explicitly notes subprocesses are too small for quantum advantage and positions results as validation of utility on external data. The derivation chain remains self-contained against external benchmarks without reducing to renamed inputs or self-citation chains.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only view provides no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; the work rests on standard quantum computing assumptions and prior scheduling literature.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Iterative quantum algorithms possess analytic guarantees relative to some classical algorithms
    Invoked when stating the framework brings quantum scheduling closer to implementation.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5753 in / 1234 out tokens · 18937 ms · 2026-06-27T09:43:52.976449+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Here, we have used FOV val- ues of 50km x 50km, 100km x 100km, and 150km x 150km

    Define our FOV set. Here, we have used FOV val- ues of 50km x 50km, 100km x 100km, and 150km x 150km

  2. [2]

    Either a single satellite or constellations of up to three satel- lites can be specified using the satellites listed in Sec

    Select the satellite(s) that will be used. Either a single satellite or constellations of up to three satel- lites can be specified using the satellites listed in Sec. III C

  3. [3]

    Select an unused FOV entry from our set of FOVs

  4. [4]

    Settto be the first timestamp in our satellite or- bital tracks

  5. [5]

    Select all satellite positions attand generate the latitude and longitude coordinates of the current FOV centered on the current satellite position

  6. [6]

    If yes, storet, the satellite name, and vectorized perime- ter in our database of imaging requests that will be used for testing the algorithm

    Determine if any of the vectorized perimeters formed from taking the intersection of our WUI and wildfire data intersect with the current FOV. If yes, storet, the satellite name, and vectorized perime- ter in our database of imaging requests that will be used for testing the algorithm. See the red poly- gons residing within the three rectangles in Fig. 2,...

  7. [7]

    Repeat Steps (3)-(6) until all FOVs have been pro- cessed. 5 IV. FORMULA TION OF THE SA TELLITE SCHEDULING PROBLEM Our formulation of the satellite scheduling problem into a quadratic unconstrained binary optimization prob- lem (QUBO) will closely follow the work of Naget al.[33] and later follow-ups [34–37]. QUBO problems are equivalent to classical Isin...

  8. [8]

    Select the node with the minimum degreed i (num- ber of edges connected to that node)

  9. [9]

    Add this node to the solution set, then remove it and all its neighbors from the graph

  10. [10]

    This method can be modified to a weighted case by re- placing degreed i with weighted degree, (di +1)/w i in the initial ranking

    Repeat steps (1)-(2) until the graph is empty. This method can be modified to a weighted case by re- placing degreed i with weighted degree, (di +1)/w i in the initial ranking. B. QAOA QAOA which stands for either the Quantum Approx- imate Optimization Algorithm [7] or the Quantum Al- ternating Operator Ansatz [8] is a quantum optimization algorithm that ...

  11. [11]

    Run QAOA on the graph problem, optimizing an- gles, and calculate the expectation values D σ(z) i E for all the qubits

  12. [12]

    Select the node with the maximum expectation value D σ(z) i E

  13. [13]

    Add this node to the solution set and then remove it and all its neighbors from the graph

  14. [14]

    Repeat steps (1)-(3) until the graph is discon- nected, and add all remaining nodes to the solution set. In Ref. [13], it was shown that this algorithm for un- weighted MIS and ap= 1 QAOA circuit performs ex- actly the same as classical MIN. That work also showed some improvement of this algorithm over classical MIN forp >1 and weighted problems. Here, we...

  15. [15]

    Wilkinson, M

    R. Wilkinson, M. Mleczko, R. Brewin, K. Gaston, M. Mueller, J. Shutler, X. Yan, and K. Anderson, Sci- ence of The Total Environment909, 168584 (2024), ISSN 0048-9697, URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/sc ience/article/pii/S0048969723072121

    2024

  16. [16]

    Rep., United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi (2022)

    Tech. Rep., United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi (2022)

    2022

  17. [17]

    G. R. van der Werf, J. T. Randerson, L. Giglio, T. T. van Leeuwen, Y. Chen, B. M. Rogers, M. Mu, M. J. E. van Marle, D. C. Morton, G. J. Collatz, et al., Earth System Science Data9, 697 (2017), URLhttps://essd.coper nicus.org/articles/9/697/2017/

    2017

  18. [18]

    S. H. Doerr and C. Sant´ ın, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences371(2016), URLhttps://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2015.0345

    work page doi:10.1098/rstb.2015.0345 2016

  19. [19]

    J. Paci, M. Newman, and T. Gage, Tech. Rep., Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation (2023), URLhttps://ww w.moore.org/docs/default-source/default-documen t-library/the-economic-fiscal-and-environmental -costs-of-wildfires-in-ca.pdf?sfvrsn=1b1b620c_0

    2023

  20. [20]

    Farhi, J

    E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, S. Gutmann, and M. Sipser, arxiv (2000), quant-ph/0001106, URLhttps://arxiv.org/ab s/quant-ph/0001106

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  21. [21]

    Farhi, J

    E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, and S. Gutmann,A quantum ap- proximate optimization algorithm(2014), URLhttps: //arxiv.org/abs/1411.4028

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  22. [22]

    Hadfield, Z

    S. Hadfield, Z. Wang, B. O'Gorman, E. Rieffel, D. Ven- turelli, and R. Biswas, Algorithms12, 34 (2019), URL https://doi.org/10.3390%2Fa12020034

    2019

  23. [23]

    H. N. Djidjev, G. Chapuis, G. Hahn, and G. Rizk, arXiv preprint arXiv:1801.08653 (2018)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  24. [24]

    H. Yu, F. Wilczek, and B. Wu, Chinese Physics Letters 38, 030304 (2021)

    2021

  25. [25]

    Ebadi, A

    S. Ebadi, A. Keesling, M. Cain, T. T. Wang, H. Levine, D. Bluvstein, G. Semeghini, A. Omran, J.-G. Liu, R. Samajdar, et al., Science376, 1209–1215 (2022), ISSN 1095-9203, URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science .abo6587

    work page doi:10.1126/science 2022

  26. [26]

    J. R. Finzgar, A. Kerschbaumer, M. J. A. Schuetz, C. B. Mendl, and H. G. Katzgraber,Quantum-informed recur- sive optimization algorithms(2023), 2308.13607

    arXiv 2023

  27. [27]

    L. T. Brady and S. Hadfield (2023), 2309.13110

    arXiv 2023

  28. [28]

    Bravyi, A

    S. Bravyi, A. Kliesch, R. Koenig, and E. Tang, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 260505 (2020), URLhttps://link.aps .org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.260505

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.125.260505 2020

  29. [29]

    Bravyi, A

    S. Bravyi, A. Kliesch, R. Koenig, and E. Tang, Quantum 6, 678 (2022), URLhttps://doi.org/10.22331%2Fq-2 022-03-30-678

    2022

  30. [30]

    Z. Bian, F. Chudak, R. Israel, B. Lackey, W. Macready, and A. Roy, Frontiers in Physics2, 56 (2014)

    2014

  31. [31]

    Z. Bian, F. Chudak, R. Israel, B. Lackey, W. G. Macready, and A. Roy,Mapping constrained optimiza- tion problems to quantum annealing with application to fault diagnosis(2016), 1603.03111

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  32. [32]

    Lackey,A belief propagation algorithm based on do- main decomposition(2018), 1810.10005

    B. Lackey,A belief propagation algorithm based on do- main decomposition(2018), 1810.10005

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  33. [33]

    F. Li, X. Zhang, S. Kondragunta, C. C. Schmidt, and C. D. Holmes, Remote Sensing of Environment237, 111600 (2020), ISSN 0034-4257, URLhttps://www.scie ncedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0034425719306 11 200

    2020

  34. [34]

    Y. Kang, E. Jang, J. Im, and C. Kwon, GIScience & Remote Sensing59, 2019 (2022)

    2019

  35. [35]

    com/science/article/pii/S0034425721004144

    Remote Sensing of Environment267, 112694 (2021), ISSN 0034-4257, URLhttps://www.sciencedirect. com/science/article/pii/S0034425721004144

    2021

  36. [36]

    S. Kato, H. Miyamoto, S. Amici, A. Oda, H. Matsushita, and R. Nakamura, International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation103, 102491 (2021), ISSN 1569-8432, URLhttps://www.scienced irect.com/science/article/pii/S0303243421001987

    2021

  37. [37]

    J. C. Mason, T. Holzmann, J. Swope, A. G. Davies, S. Chien, J. Mueting, T. Harrison, V. Shah, and J. Wal- ter, inIGARSS 2023 - 2023 IEEE International Geo- science and Remote Sensing Symposium(2023), pp. 829– 832

    2023

  38. [38]

    Ignatenko, P

    V. Ignatenko, P. Laurila, A. Radius, L. Lamentowski, O. Antropov, and D. Muff, inIGARSS 2020 - 2020 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Sympo- sium(2020), pp. 3581–3584

    2020

  39. [39]

    Radeloff, D

    V. Radeloff, D. Helmers, M. H. Mockrin, A. R. Carl- son, T. J. Hawbaker, and S. Martinuzzi,The 1990- 2020 wildland-urban interface of the conterminous united states - geospatial data (4th edition)(2023), URLhttps: //www.fs.usda.gov/rds/archive/catalog/RDS-201 5-0012-4

    1990

  40. [40]

    Koltunov, S

    A. Koltunov, S. L. Ustin, and E. M. Prins, Remote Sens- ing of Environment127, 194 (2012), ISSN 0034-4257, URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/arti cle/pii/S0034425712003549

    2012

  41. [41]

    T. J. Schmit, P. Griffith, M. M. Gunshor, J. M. Daniels, S. J. Goodman, and W. J. Lebair, Bulletin of the Ameri- can Meteorological Society98, 681 (2017), URLhttps: //journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/98/4/b ams-d-15-00230.1.xml

    2017

  42. [42]

    C. C. Schmidt, J. Hoffman, E. Prins, and S. Lindstrom, Tech. Rep., NOAA NESDIS Center for Satellite Applica- tions and Research (2020), URLhttps://www.star.nes dis.noaa.gov/goesr/documents/ATBDs/Enterprise/AT BD_Enterprise_Fire_Hot_Spot_v2.7_2020-10-31.pdf. [29]U.S. Forest Service - Geospatial Data Discovery,https: //data-usfs.hub.arcgis.com/documents/780...

    2020

  43. [43]

    D. E. Calkin, J. D. Cohen, M. A. Finney, and M. P. Thompson, Proceedings of the Na- tional Academy of Sciences111, 746 (2014), https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.1315088111, URLhttps://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas. 1315088111

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.1315088111 2014

  44. [44]

    C. H. Acton, Planetary and Space Science44, 65 (1996), ISSN 0032-0633, planetary data system, URLhttps: //www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0032 063395001077

    1996

  45. [45]

    Acton, N

    C. Acton, N. Bachman, B. Semenov, and E. Wright, Planetary and Space Science150, 9 (2018), ISSN 0032- 0633, enabling Open and Interoperable Access to Plane- tary Science and Heliophysics Databases and Tools, URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pi i/S0032063316303129

    2018

  46. [46]

    S. Nag, A. S. Li, and J. H. Merrick, Advances in Space Research61, 891 (2018), ISSN 0273-1177, URLhttps: //www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027 3117717308050

    2018

  47. [47]

    Stollenwerk, V

    T. Stollenwerk, V. Michaud, E. Lobe, M. Picard, A. Basermann, and T. Botter,Image acquisition planning for earth observation satellites with a quantum annealer (2020), 2006.09724

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  48. [48]

    Rainjonneau, I

    S. Rainjonneau, I. Tokarev, S. Iudin, S. Rayaprolu, K. Pinto, D. Lemtiuzhnikova, M. Koblan, E. Barashov, M. Kordzanganeh, M. Pflitsch, et al., IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Re- mote Sensing16, 7062 (2023), URLhttps://doi.org/ 10.1109%2Fjstars.2023.3287154

    arXiv 2023

  49. [49]

    Makarov, M

    A. Makarov, M. M. Taddei, E. Osaba, G. Franceschetto, E. Villar-Rodriguez, and I. Oregi,Optimization of image acquisition for earth observation satellites via quantum computing(2023), 2307.14419

    arXiv 2023

  50. [50]

    Quetschlich, V

    N. Quetschlich, V. Koch, L. Burgholzer, and R. Wille, A hybrid classical quantum computing approach to the satellite mission planning problem(2023), 2308.00029

    arXiv 2023

  51. [51]

    Kadowaki and H

    T. Kadowaki and H. Nishimori, Phys. Rev. E58, 5355 (1998), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/Phy sRevE.58.5355

    work page doi:10.1103/phy 1998

  52. [52]

    M. M. Halld´ orsson and J. Radhakrishnan, Algorithmica 18, 145 (1997), URLhttps://doi.org/10.1007/BF0252 3693

    work page doi:10.1007/bf0252 1997

  53. [53]

    Y. J. Patel, S. Jerbi, T. B¨ ack, and V. Dunjko,Reinforce- ment learning assisted recursive qaoa(2022), 2207.06294

    arXiv 2022

  54. [54]

    Bae and S

    E. Bae and S. Lee,Recursive qaoa outperforms the orig- inal qaoa for the max-cut problem on complete graphs (2023), 2211.15832

    arXiv 2023

  55. [55]

    Bravyi, G

    S. Bravyi, G. Smith, and J. A. Smolin, Physical Review X6, 021043 (2016), 1506.01396

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  56. [56]

    Piveteau and D

    C. Piveteau and D. Sutter,Circuit knitting with classical communication(2023), 2205.00016

    arXiv 2023

  57. [57]

    Sanders and C

    P. Sanders and C. Schulz, inExperimental Algorithms, 12th International Symposium, SEA 2013, Rome, Italy, June 5-7, 2013. Proceedings(Springer, 2013), vol. 7933, pp. 164–175

    2013