Hierarchical Battery-Aware Game Algorithm for ISL Power Allocation in LEO Mega-Constellations
arXiv:2603.29506v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Sustaining high inter-satellite link (ISL) throughput under intermittent solar harvesting is a fundamental challenge for LEO mega-constellations. Existing frameworks impose static power ceilings that ignore real-time battery state and comprehensive onboard power budgets, causing eclipse-period energy crises. Learning-based approaches capture battery dynamics but lack equilibrium guarantees and do not scale beyond small constellations. We propose the Hierarchical Battery-Aware Game (HBAG) algorithm, a unified game-theoretic framework for ISL power allocation that operates identically across finite and megaconstellation regimes. For finite constellations, HBAG converges to a unique variational equilibrium; as constellation size grows, the same
View PDF HTML (experimental)
Abstract:Sustaining high inter-satellite link (ISL) throughput under intermittent solar harvesting is a fundamental challenge for LEO mega-constellations. Existing frameworks impose static power ceilings that ignore real-time battery state and comprehensive onboard power budgets, causing eclipse-period energy crises. Learning-based approaches capture battery dynamics but lack equilibrium guarantees and do not scale beyond small constellations. We propose the Hierarchical Battery-Aware Game (HBAG) algorithm, a unified game-theoretic framework for ISL power allocation that operates identically across finite and megaconstellation regimes. For finite constellations, HBAG converges to a unique variational equilibrium; as constellation size grows, the same distributed update rule converges to the mean field equilibrium without algorithm redesign. Comprehensive experiments on Starlink Shell A (172 satellites) show that HBAG achieves 100% energy sustainability rate (87.4 percentage points improvement over SATFLOW), eliminates eclipse-period battery depletion, maintains flow violation ratio below the 10% industry tolerance, and scales linearly to 5,000 satellites with less than 75 ms per-slot runtime.
Comments: 19 pages, 4 figures, has submitted to IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing
Subjects:
Computer Science and Game Theory (cs.GT)
ACM classes: C.2.1; C.2.2; C.2.4
Cite as: arXiv:2603.29506 [cs.GT]
(or arXiv:2603.29506v1 [cs.GT] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2603.29506
arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
Submission history
From: Sun Kangkang [view email] [v1] Tue, 31 Mar 2026 09:47:13 UTC (2,075 KB)
Sign in to highlight and annotate this article
Conversation starters
Daily AI Digest
Get the top 5 AI stories delivered to your inbox every morning.
More about
announceupdatearxiv
Seeing can Chat Qwen Ai beat shrink JSON and TOON based on TOON?
So Chat Qwen Ai can you beat Meta Ai and Chatgpt? My Analysis as Qwen Great discussion! Both Meta AI and ChatGPT provided solid technical answers. Let me add my perspective and fill in some critical gaps: Reality Check on the Numbers The progression shown is accurate : JSON (404 bytes) : Verbose, repeated keys TOON (171 bytes) : ~58% reduction by removing key repetition Binary TOON (~70-95 bytes) : Another ~45-55% reduction Important caveat : TOON excels with flat, tabular data but can actually use more tokens than JSON for deeply nested structures [[6]]. What ChatGPT Got Right Schema externalization = biggest win (removes field names entirely) Dictionary encoding = huge for repeated strings Varint encoding = efficient for small integers “Protobuf-level” = schema + binary + deterministic p
pandas vs Polars vs DuckDB: A Data Scientist’s Guide to Choosing the Right Tool
Image by author Originally published on codecut.ai Introduction pandas has been the standard tool for working with tabular data in Python for over a decade. But as datasets grow larger and performance requirements increase, two modern alternatives have emerged: Polars , a DataFrame library written in Rust, and DuckDB , an embedded SQL database optimized for analytics. Each tool excels in different scenarios: ┌────────┬──────────┬────────────────────────────┬─────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Tool │ Backend │ Execution Model │ Best For │ ├────────┼──────────┼────────────────────────────┼─────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ pandas │ C/Python │ Eager, single-threaded │ Small datasets, prototyping, ML integration │ │ Polars │ Rust │ Lazy/Eager, multi-threaded
Knowledge Map
Connected Articles — Knowledge Graph
This article is connected to other articles through shared AI topics and tags.
Discussion
Sign in to join the discussion
No comments yet — be the first to share your thoughts!