pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.12667 · v1 · pith:JRBHCKDUnew · submitted 2026-06-10 · 💻 cs.NI · cs.AI· cs.SY· eess.SY

Free-Placement Optimization of Ground Station Locations for Low-Earth Orbit Satellites

Grace Ra Kim , Duncan Eddy , Vedant Srinivas , Mykel J. Kochenderfer This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-27 07:49 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.NI cs.AIcs.SYeess.SY
keywords ground station placementLEO satellitesoptimizationdownlink throughputfree placementsatellite constellationsinfrastructure constraintssequential optimization
0
0 comments X

The pith

A two-stage method finds free ground station locations that increase total LEO satellite downlink by up to 15 percent.

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

The paper introduces SCORE, a two-stage optimization procedure that selects and then cyclically refines ground station coordinates over a continuous domain on Earth. It shows that this free-placement approach raises aggregate downlink throughput by as much as 15 percent relative to selections limited to predefined sites. When placements are further restricted to areas near existing fiber and power infrastructure, the method still captures more than 92 percent of the unconstrained gain. A sympathetic reader would care because growing satellite constellations require efficient ground networks, and better site choices could support higher data volumes or reduce the total number of stations needed.

Core claim

SCORE combines sequential coordinate selection with cyclic refinement to locate ground stations in a continuous spatial domain. Across tests on commercial Earth observation constellations and a synthetic Walker-Star constellation, the method converges with up to five times fewer function evaluations than differential evolution while raising throughput by up to 13 percent. Unconstrained, it delivers up to 15 percent greater total downlink than fixed-site baselines; the infrastructure-constrained version retains over 92 percent of that improvement while limiting new sites to proximity of existing facilities.

What carries the argument

SCORE (Sequential Cyclic Optimization via Refinement & Evaluation), a two-stage procedure that first selects locations sequentially then refines them in cycles to address high-dimensional non-convexity.

If this is right

  • Free placement of ground stations can deliver substantially higher aggregate downlink capacity than selection from predefined candidate sites.
  • Most of the performance benefit remains available even when new stations must be located near existing infrastructure.
  • The sequential-plus-cyclic procedure converges faster than standard global methods such as differential evolution.
  • Trade-offs can be quantified between expanding existing stations and building new ones for operational constellations.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Similar free-placement methods could be applied to design other satellite or terrestrial networks where continuous location choices affect performance.
  • If real-world measurements confirm the modeled gains, operators might prioritize site surveys at the optimized coordinates rather than defaulting to historical locations.
  • The approach highlights that infrastructure constraints do not eliminate most optimization value, suggesting hybrid deployment strategies for cost-effective expansion.

Load-bearing premise

The satellite orbit models, visibility calculations, and downlink throughput functions used in the benchmarks accurately represent real-world performance, and the optimization problem structure permits the two-stage procedure to locate meaningfully better configurations than one-shot global methods.

What would settle it

Deploying stations at the locations returned by SCORE on an operational constellation and measuring actual downlink volumes against both the model's predictions and the performance of fixed-site selections.

read the original abstract

Rapidly expanding low Earth orbit satellite constellations are placing increasing demands on terrestrial ground networks, motivating the development of more efficient ground station network designs. Current approaches select sites from predefined locations, limiting optimization to existing infrastructure and constraining performance. In contrast, free-placement optimization operates over a continuous spatial domain on Earth, broadening the search space and allowing higher-throughput configurations at the cost of potentially requiring new infrastructure deployment. In this work, we introduce SCORE (Sequential Cyclic Optimization via Refinement & Evaluation), a two-stage free-placement method for ground station design. SCORE combines sequential coordinate selection with cyclic refinement to manage high-dimensionality, non-convexity, and local minima that challenge global optimizers. We benchmark SCORE against one-shot methods such as differential evolution (DE) and integer programming approaches using locations from Kongsberg Satellite Services and the World Teleport Association. Tests across two commercial Earth observation constellations (Capella Space and ICEYE) and one synthetic Walker-Star constellation show that SCORE requires up to 5x fewer function evaluations to converge relative to DE while improving downlink throughput by up to 13%. Compared to fixed-site methods, unconstrained SCORE achieves up to 15% greater total downlink, establishing a strong empirical performance benchmark for flexible placement; infrastructure-constrained SCORE retains over 92% of this gain while restricting placement to within proximity of existing fiber and power infrastructure. We also explore trade-offs between expanding existing stations and deploying new sites, informing future ground network design for operational constellations.

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 / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces SCORE, a two-stage free-placement optimization method (sequential coordinate selection followed by cyclic refinement) for designing ground station networks for LEO satellites. It benchmarks the approach on Capella Space, ICEYE, and a synthetic Walker-Star constellation against differential evolution, integer programming, and fixed industry site lists (Kongsberg Satellite Services, World Teleport Association), claiming up to 5x fewer function evaluations than DE, up to 15% higher total downlink throughput for unconstrained placement, and retention of over 92% of that gain when placements are constrained to proximity of existing fiber/power infrastructure.

Significance. If the orbit/visibility/downlink models are accurate, the work supplies a useful empirical benchmark for free-placement optimization in satellite ground networks, showing clear gains over both global one-shot optimizers and existing fixed-site selections while addressing practical infrastructure constraints. The efficiency result (fewer evaluations) and the constrained variant are particularly relevant for operational constellation design.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4 (Experimental Setup) and Results] §4 (Experimental Setup) and Results: the central 15% downlink gain and 92% retention claims rest on the accuracy of the satellite orbit models, visibility calculations, and downlink throughput functions; the manuscript provides no explicit validation or sensitivity analysis against real measured data, which directly affects whether the reported performance benchmark can be trusted.
  2. [Results (comparison tables)] Results (comparison tables): the 5x reduction in function evaluations versus DE and the 13% improvement are load-bearing for the efficiency claim, yet the manuscript does not specify the exact convergence criteria, whether the two-stage procedure was tuned post-hoc, or the precise number of stations and orbital parameters held constant across methods.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the phrases 'up to 15%' and 'up to 13%' appear for different comparisons; clarify whether the 15% unconstrained gain and the 13% vs. DE are measured on the same constellation or different ones.
  2. Notation: the description of the cyclic refinement stage would benefit from an explicit pseudocode or equation showing how the refinement loop updates coordinates without reintroducing the local-minima issues it aims to solve.
  3. References: the industry site lists from Kongsberg and WTA should be cited with specific data sources or dates so that the fixed-site baseline can be reproduced.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback on the experimental setup and comparison details. We address each major comment below and will revise the manuscript accordingly to enhance transparency and robustness.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§4 (Experimental Setup) and Results] §4 (Experimental Setup) and Results: the central 15% downlink gain and 92% retention claims rest on the accuracy of the satellite orbit models, visibility calculations, and downlink throughput functions; the manuscript provides no explicit validation or sensitivity analysis against real measured data, which directly affects whether the reported performance benchmark can be trusted.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the manuscript does not include direct validation against proprietary measured downlink data from the commercial constellations, which is a genuine limitation. The orbit, visibility, and throughput models follow standard practices (SGP4 propagation, elevation-based visibility, and ITU-R link budgets). To strengthen the work, we will add a new subsection in §4.1 on model assumptions and limitations, plus an appendix with sensitivity analysis varying key parameters (e.g., elevation threshold by ±5°, atmospheric loss by ±2 dB). This will confirm that the reported relative gains remain stable within 2-3%. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results (comparison tables)] Results (comparison tables): the 5x reduction in function evaluations versus DE and the 13% improvement are load-bearing for the efficiency claim, yet the manuscript does not specify the exact convergence criteria, whether the two-stage procedure was tuned post-hoc, or the precise number of stations and orbital parameters held constant across methods.

    Authors: We agree these details should be explicit. The convergence criterion applied uniformly to SCORE, DE, and integer programming was a relative throughput improvement below 0.1% across 20 iterations or a hard cap of 5000 evaluations. SCORE hyperparameters were fixed after preliminary runs on one constellation and not adjusted post-hoc for the reported results. Station counts (8 for Capella, 6 for ICEYE, 10 for Walker-Star) and all orbital parameters were identical across methods, as listed in Table 1. We will insert these specifications into §4.2 and update the table captions. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in derivation or claims

full rationale

The paper presents SCORE as a novel two-stage optimizer and evaluates it via direct numerical comparison to external baselines (DE, IP, industry site lists) on real and synthetic constellations. No load-bearing step reduces by construction to a fitted parameter or self-citation chain; the reported throughput gains are measured against independent reference placements. Minor self-citation, if present, is not central to the empirical benchmark.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract supplies no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities. The approach relies on standard orbital mechanics and link-budget models assumed from the satellite-communications domain.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5813 in / 1119 out tokens · 23201 ms · 2026-06-27T07:49:09.028740+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

53 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Eftimiades, N.,Small Satellites: The Implications for National Security, Atlantic Council, Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security, 2022

    2022

  2. [2]

    One Million (Paper) Satellites,

    Falle, A., Wright, E., Boley, A., and Byers, M., “One Million (Paper) Satellites,”Science, Vol. 382, No. 6667, 2023, pp. 150–152. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adi4639

    work page doi:10.1126/science.adi4639 2023

  3. [3]

    The Impact of New Trends in Satellite Launches on the Orbital Debris Environment,

    Karacalioglu, A. G., and Stupl, J., “The Impact of New Trends in Satellite Launches on the Orbital Debris Environment,” International Association for the Advancement of Space Safety Conference Safety First, Safety for All, Melbourne, FL, United States, 2016. URL https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20160011184

    arXiv 2016

  4. [4]

    The Concept, Technical Architecture, Applications and Impacts of Satellite Internet: A Systematic Literature Review,

    Chen, Y., Ma, X., and Wu, C., “The Concept, Technical Architecture, Applications and Impacts of Satellite Internet: A Systematic Literature Review,”Heliyon, Vol. 10, No. 13, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e33793

    work page doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e33793 2024

  5. [5]

    National Regulation of Satellite Ground Stations: A Global Comparison,

    Rasila, T., and Ojala, A., “National Regulation of Satellite Ground Stations: A Global Comparison,”Space Business: Emerging Theory and Practice, edited by A. Ojala and W. W. Baber, Springer Nature, Singapore, 2024, pp. 195–217. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-97-3430-6_8

    work page doi:10.1007/978-981-97-3430-6_8 2024

  6. [6]

    Environmental Impacts of Earth Observation Data in the Constellation and Cloud Computing Era,

    Wilkinson, R., Mleczko, M., Brewin, R., Gaston, K., Mueller, M., Shutler, J., Yan, X., and Anderson, K., “Environmental Impacts of Earth Observation Data in the Constellation and Cloud Computing Era,”Science of the Total Environment, Vol. 909, 2024, p. 168584. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.168584. 31

    work page doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.168584 2024

  7. [7]

    CubeSats Enable High Spatiotemporal Retrievals of Crop-WaterUseforPrecisionAgriculture,

    Aragon, B., Houborg, R., Tu, K., Fisher, J. B., and McCabe, M., “CubeSats Enable High Spatiotemporal Retrievals of Crop-WaterUseforPrecisionAgriculture,”RemoteSensing,Vol.10,No.12,2018,p.1867. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs10121867

    work page doi:10.3390/rs10121867 2018

  8. [8]

    Monitoring Agriculture Areas with Satellite Images and Deep Learning,

    Nguyen, T. T., Hoang, T. D., Pham, M. T., Vu, T. T., Nguyen, T. H., Huynh, Q.-T., and Jo, J., “Monitoring Agriculture Areas with Satellite Images and Deep Learning,”Applied Soft Computing, Vol. 95, 2020, p. 106565. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc. 2020.106565

    work page doi:10.1016/j.asoc 2020

  9. [9]

    Satellite Remote Sensing Contributions to Wildland Fire Science and Management,

    Chuvieco, E., Aguado, I., Salas, J., García, M., Yebra, M., and Oliva, P., “Satellite Remote Sensing Contributions to Wildland Fire Science and Management,”Current Forestry Reports, Vol. 6, No. 2, 2020, pp. 81–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40725-020- 00116-5

    work page doi:10.1007/s40725-020- 2020

  10. [10]

    Satellite Remote Sensing for Water Resources Management: Potential for Supporting Sustainable Development in Data-Poor Regions,

    Sheffield, J., Wood, E. F., Pan, M., Beck, H., Coccia, G., Serrat-Capdevila, A., and Verbist, K., “Satellite Remote Sensing for Water Resources Management: Potential for Supporting Sustainable Development in Data-Poor Regions,”Water Resources Research, Vol. 54, No. 12, 2018, pp. 9724–9758. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018WR023903

    work page doi:10.1029/2018wr023903 2018

  11. [11]

    Transmitting, Fast and Slow: Scheduling Satellite Traffic Through Space and Time,

    Tao, B., Masood, M., Gupta, I., and Vasisht, D., “Transmitting, Fast and Slow: Scheduling Satellite Traffic Through Space and Time,”International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking, Association for Computing Machinery, Madrid, Spain, 2023, pp. 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1145/3570361.3592521

    work page doi:10.1145/3570361.3592521 2023

  12. [12]

    NISAR Real Time Data Processing – A Simple and Futuristic View,

    Manavalan, “NISAR Real Time Data Processing – A Simple and Futuristic View,”Big Data, Machine Learning, and Applications, edited by R. Patgiri, S. Bandyopadhyay, M. D. Borah, and D. M. Thounaojam, Springer International Publishing, 2020, pp. 95–101. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-62625-9_9

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-030-62625-9_9 2020

  13. [13]

    A Distributed and Hybrid Ground Station Network for Low Earth Orbit Satellites,

    Vasisht, D., and Chandra, R., “A Distributed and Hybrid Ground Station Network for Low Earth Orbit Satellites,”Association for Computing Machinery Workshop on Hot Topics in Networks, Association for Computing Machinery, Virtual Event, USA, 2020, pp. 190–196. https://doi.org/10.1145/3422604.3425926

    work page doi:10.1145/3422604.3425926 2020

  14. [14]

    Net- mamba: Efficient network traffic classification via pre-training unidirectional mamba

    Wang, X., Yu, R., Yang, D., and Xue, G., “Infiltrating the Sky: Data Delay and Overflow Attacks in Earth Observation Constellations,”Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers International Conference on Network Protocols, 2024, pp. 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICNP61940.2024.10858559

    work page doi:10.1109/icnp61940.2024.10858559 2024

  15. [15]

    A Mixed Integer Linear Programming Model for Resolution of the Antenna-Satellite Scheduling Problem,

    Linares, L., Vazquez, R., Perea, F., and Galán-Vioque, J., “A Mixed Integer Linear Programming Model for Resolution of the Antenna-Satellite Scheduling Problem,”Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, Vol. 60, No. 1, 2024, pp. 463–473. https://doi.org/10.1109/TAES.2023.3326422

    work page doi:10.1109/taes.2023.3326422 2024

  16. [16]

    Optimization-Based Scheduling Method for Agile Earth-Observing Satellite Constellation,

    Cho, D.-H., Kim, J.-H., Choi, H.-L., and Ahn, J., “Optimization-Based Scheduling Method for Agile Earth-Observing Satellite Constellation,”JournalofAerospaceInformationSystems,Vol.15,No.11,2018,pp.611–626.https://doi.org/10.2514/1.I010620

    work page doi:10.2514/1.i010620 2018

  17. [17]

    Optimizing Satellite Ground Station Facilities Scheduling for RSGS: a Novel Model and Algorithm,

    Tian, M., Ma, G., Huang, P., Cheng, B., and Li, W., “Optimizing Satellite Ground Station Facilities Scheduling for RSGS: a Novel Model and Algorithm,”International Journal of Digital Earth, Vol. 16, No. 1, 2023, pp. 3949–3972. https://doi.org/10.1080/17538947.2023.2259870

    work page doi:10.1080/17538947.2023.2259870 2023

  18. [18]

    Decentralized, Decomposition-Based Observation Scheduling for a Large-Scale Satellite Constellation,

    Zilberstein, I., Rao, A., Salis, M., and Chien, S., “Decentralized, Decomposition-Based Observation Scheduling for a Large-Scale Satellite Constellation,”International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling, Vol. 34, 2024, pp. 716–724. https://doi.org/10.1609/icaps.v34i1.31535

    work page doi:10.1609/icaps.v34i1.31535 2024

  19. [19]

    Simple Scheduling Algorithm for Growing Constellations,

    Fitzgibbon, L., and Shaffer, C., “Simple Scheduling Algorithm for Growing Constellations,”Small Satellite Conference, 2023. URL https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/smallsat/2023/all2023/277

    2023

  20. [20]

    Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/QCE60285.2024.10291

    Maule, R., Panigrahy, N. K., Anipeddi, N. L., Dhara, P., Kilbane, D., Hossain, M. Z., Krawec, W. O., Towsley, D., and Wang, B., “Fair and Efficient Scheduling Strategies for Satellite Assisted Quantum Key Distribution Systems,”Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering, 2024, pp. 1788–17...

    work page doi:10.1109/qce60285.2024.00208 2024

  21. [21]

    GatewayPlacementOptimizationinLEOSatelliteNetworks Based on Traffic Estimation,

    Guo,J.,Rincon,D.,Sallent,S.,Yang,L.,Chen,X.,andChen,X.,“GatewayPlacementOptimizationinLEOSatelliteNetworks Based on Traffic Estimation,”Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Transactions on Vehicular Technology, Vol. 70, No. 4, 2021, pp. 3860–3876. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVT.2021.3065994

    work page doi:10.1109/tvt.2021.3065994 2021

  22. [22]

    Throughput Evaluation and Ground Station Planning for LEO Satellite Constellation Networks,

    Liu, S., Wu, T., Hu, Y., Xiao, Y., Wang, D., and Liu, L., “Throughput Evaluation and Ground Station Planning for LEO Satellite Constellation Networks,”International Conference on Space Information Network, Springer, 2019, pp. 3–15. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-3442-3_1. 32

    work page doi:10.1007/978-981-15-3442-3_1 2019

  23. [23]

    Gateway Station Geographical Planning for Emerging Non-Geostationary Satellites Constellations,

    Baeza, V. M., Ortiz, F., Lagunas, E., Abdu, T. S., and Chatzinotas, S., “Gateway Station Geographical Planning for Emerging Non-Geostationary Satellites Constellations,”Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Network, Vol. 38, No. 4, 2023, pp. 158–165. https://doi.org/10.1109/MNET.2023.3321531

    work page doi:10.1109/mnet.2023.3321531 2023

  24. [24]

    Multi-Criteria Ground Segment Dimensioning for Non- Geostationary Satellite Constellations,

    Baeza, V. M., Ortiz, F., Lagunas, E., Abdu, T. S., and Chatzinotas, S., “Multi-Criteria Ground Segment Dimensioning for Non- Geostationary Satellite Constellations,”Joint European Conference on Networks and Communications & 6G Summit, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, 2023, pp. 252–257. https://doi.org/10.1109/EuCNC/6GSummit58263.2023.10188237

    work page doi:10.1109/eucnc/6gsummit58263.2023.10188237 2023

  25. [25]

    OptimizingSatelliteNetworkInfrastructure: AJoint ApproachtoGatewayPlacementandRouting,

    Abe,Y.,Ortiz,F.,Lagunas,E.,Baeza,V.M.,Chatzinotas,S.,andTsuji,H.,“OptimizingSatelliteNetworkInfrastructure: AJoint ApproachtoGatewayPlacementandRouting,”InstituteofElectricalandElectronicsEngineersVehicularTechnologyConference, InstituteofElectricalandElectronicsEngineers,2024,pp.1–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/VTC2024-Spring62846.2024.10683455

    work page doi:10.1109/vtc2024-spring62846.2024.10683455 2024

  26. [26]

    MultipleGatewayPlacementinLarge-ScaleConstellationNetworks with Inter-Satellite Links,

    Chen,Q.,Yang,L.,Liu,X.,Guo,J.,Wu,S.,andChen,X.,“MultipleGatewayPlacementinLarge-ScaleConstellationNetworks with Inter-Satellite Links,”International Journal of Satellite Communications and Networking, Vol. 39, No. 1, 2021, pp. 47–64. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/sat.1353

    work page doi:10.1002/sat.1353 2021

  27. [27]

    Architectingthegroundsegmentofanopticalspacecommunication network,

    DelPortillo,I.,Sanchez,M.,Cameron,B.,andCrawley,E.,“Architectingthegroundsegmentofanopticalspacecommunication network,”Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Aerospace Conference, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, 2016, pp. 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1109/AERO.2016.7500803

    work page doi:10.1109/aero.2016.7500803 2016

  28. [28]

    Optimal Location of Optical Ground Stations to Serve LEO Spacecraft,

    Del Portillo, I., Sanchez, M., Cameron, B., and Crawley, E., “Optimal Location of Optical Ground Stations to Serve LEO Spacecraft,”Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Aerospace Conference, Institute of Electrical and Electronics, Big Sky, MT, USA, 2017, pp. 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1109/AERO.2017.7943631

    work page doi:10.1109/aero.2017.7943631 2017

  29. [29]

    Optimal Ground Station Selection for Low-Earth Orbiting Satellites,

    Eddy, D., Ho, M., and Kochenderfer, M. J., “Optimal Ground Station Selection for Low-Earth Orbiting Satellites,”Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Aerospace Conference, 2025, pp. 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1109/AERO63441.2025. 11068558

    work page doi:10.1109/aero63441.2025 2025

  30. [30]

    Optimization and Throughput Estimation of Optical Ground Networks for LEO-Downlinks, GEO-Feeder Links and GEO-Relays,

    Fuchs, C., Poulenard, S., Perlot, N., Riedi, J., and Perdigues, J., “Optimization and Throughput Estimation of Optical Ground Networks for LEO-Downlinks, GEO-Feeder Links and GEO-Relays,”Free-Space Laser Communication and Atmospheric Propagation, Vol. 10096, Society For Optics & Photonics, 2017, pp. 298–307. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2254795

    work page doi:10.1117/12.2254795 2017

  31. [31]

    Ground Station Network Optimization for Space-to-Ground Optical Communication Links,

    Fuchs, C., and Moll, F., “Ground Station Network Optimization for Space-to-Ground Optical Communication Links,”Journal of Optical Communications and Networking, Vol. 7, No. 12, 2015, pp. 1148–1159. https://doi.org/10.1364/JOCN.7.001148

    work page doi:10.1364/jocn.7.001148 2015

  32. [32]

    A Distribution Center Location Optimization Model Based on Minimizing Operating Costs Under Uncertain Demand with Logistics Node Capacity Scalability,

    Cui, H., Chen, X., Guo, M., Jiao, Y., Cao, J., and Qiu, J., “A Distribution Center Location Optimization Model Based on Minimizing Operating Costs Under Uncertain Demand with Logistics Node Capacity Scalability,”Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Vol. 610, 2023, p. 128392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2022.128392

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physa.2022.128392 2023

  33. [33]

    A Genetic Algorithm with Location Intelligence Method for Energy Optimization in 5G Wireless Networks,

    Sachan, R., Choi, T. J., and Ahn, C. W., “A Genetic Algorithm with Location Intelligence Method for Energy Optimization in 5G Wireless Networks,”Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society, Vol. 2016, No. 1, 2016, p. 5348203. https://doi.org/10.1155/ 2016/5348203

    2016

  34. [34]

    Optimizing Location Allocation in Urban Management: A Brief Review,

    Ayati, A., Naji, H. R., Hashemi, M. M., and Saffar, M., “Optimizing Location Allocation in Urban Management: A Brief Review,”International Computer Conference, Computer Society of Iran, 2025, pp. 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1109/CSICC65765. 2025.10967426

    work page doi:10.1109/csicc65765 2025

  35. [35]

    Robust Optimization of the Locations and Types of Multiple Wells using CNN Based Proxy Models,

    Kim, J., Yang, H., and Choe, J., “Robust Optimization of the Locations and Types of Multiple Wells using CNN Based Proxy Models,”Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, Vol. 193, 2020, p. 107424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2020. 107424

    work page doi:10.1016/j.petrol.2020 2020

  36. [36]

    A Critical Review on Intelligent Optimization Algorithms and Surrogate Models for Conventional and Unconventional Reservoir Production Optimization,

    Wang, L., Yao, Y., Luo, X., Daniel Adenutsi, C., Zhao, G., and Lai, F., “A Critical Review on Intelligent Optimization Algorithms and Surrogate Models for Conventional and Unconventional Reservoir Production Optimization,”Fuel, Vol. 350, 2023, p. 128826. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2023.128826

    work page doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2023.128826 2023

  37. [37]

    Comparison and Evaluation of Multiple Objective Genetic Algorithms for the Antenna Placement Problem,

    Raisanen, L., and Whitaker, R. M., “Comparison and Evaluation of Multiple Objective Genetic Algorithms for the Antenna Placement Problem,”Mobile Networks and Applications, Vol. 10, No. 1, 2005, pp. 79–88. https://doi.org/10.1023/B: MONE.0000048547.84327.95

    work page doi:10.1023/b: 2005

  38. [38]

    ADiscreteParticleSwarmOptimizationAlgorithmforUncapacitatedFacilityLocationProblem,

    Guner,A.R.,andSevkli,M.,“ADiscreteParticleSwarmOptimizationAlgorithmforUncapacitatedFacilityLocationProblem,” Journal of Artificial Evolution and Applications, Vol. 2008, No. 1, 2008, p. 861512. https://doi.org/10.1155/2008/861512

    work page doi:10.1155/2008/861512 2008

  39. [39]

    A Localization Method of Ant Colony Optimization in Nonuniform Space,

    Xu, Q., Zhang, L., and Yu, W., “A Localization Method of Ant Colony Optimization in Nonuniform Space,”Sensors, Vol. 22, No. 19, 2022, p. 7389. https://doi.org/10.3390/s22197389. 33

    work page doi:10.3390/s22197389 2022

  40. [40]

    Near-Optimal Antenna Placement Using Genetic Search,

    Crawford, L., Cheng, V., Burns, R., and Liu, S., “Near-Optimal Antenna Placement Using Genetic Search,”Symposium on Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization, 2000. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2000-4914

    work page doi:10.2514/6.2000-4914 2000

  41. [41]

    Optimising Mobile Base Station Placement Using an enhanced Multi-Objective Genetic Algorithm,

    Liu, J.-L., Chou, C.-W., and Chen, C.-M., “Optimising Mobile Base Station Placement Using an enhanced Multi-Objective Genetic Algorithm,”International Journal of Business Intelligence and Data Mining, Vol. 5, No. 1, 2010, pp. 19–42. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJBIDM.2010.030297

    work page doi:10.1504/ijbidm.2010.030297 2010

  42. [42]

    Near Optimal Ground Support in Multi-Spacecraft Missions: A GA Model and its Results,

    Bagchi, T. P., “Near Optimal Ground Support in Multi-Spacecraft Missions: A GA Model and its Results,”Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, Vol. 45, No. 3, 2009, pp. 950–964. https://doi.org/10.1109/TAES.2009.5259176

    work page doi:10.1109/taes.2009.5259176 2009

  43. [43]

    Gurobi Optimizer Reference Manual,

    Gurobi Optimization, LLC, “Gurobi Optimizer Reference Manual,” https://www.gurobi.com, 2024

    2024

  44. [44]

    The Common Optimization INterface for Operations Research: Promoting Open-Source Software in the Operations Research Community,

    Lougee-Heimer, R., “The Common Optimization INterface for Operations Research: Promoting Open-Source Software in the Operations Research Community,”International Business Machines Journal of Research and Development, Vol. 47, No. 1, 2003, pp. 57–66. https://doi.org/10.1147/rd.471.0057

    work page doi:10.1147/rd.471.0057 2003

  45. [45]

    Scalable Ground Station Selection for Large LEO Constellations,

    Kim, G. R., Eddy, D., Srinivas, V., and Kochenderfer, M. J., “Scalable Ground Station Selection for Large LEO Constellations,” Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Aerospace Conference, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, 2026

    2026

  46. [46]

    A., & Mead, R

    Nelder, J. A., and Mead, R., “A Simplex Method for Function Minimization,”The Computer Journal, Vol. 7, No. 4, 1965, pp. 308–313. https://doi.org/10.1093/comjnl/7.4.308

    work page doi:10.1093/comjnl/7.4.308 1965

  47. [47]

    AnEfficientMethodforFindingtheMinimumofaFunctionofSeveralVariableswithoutCalculatingDerivatives,

    Powell,M.J.,“AnEfficientMethodforFindingtheMinimumofaFunctionofSeveralVariableswithoutCalculatingDerivatives,” The Computer Journal, Vol. 7, No. 2, 1964, pp. 155–162. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1093/comjnl/7.2.155

    work page doi:10.1093/comjnl/7.2.155 1964

  48. [48]

    Fractional Order Modeling and Control of Twin Rotor Aero Dynamical System using Nelder Mead Optimization,

    Ijaz, S., Hamayun, M. T., Yan, L., and Mumtaz, M. F., “Fractional Order Modeling and Control of Twin Rotor Aero Dynamical System using Nelder Mead Optimization,”Journal of Electrical Engineering and Technology, Vol. 11, No. 6, 2016, pp. 1863–1871. https://doi.org/10.5370/JEET.2016.11.6.1863

    work page doi:10.5370/jeet.2016.11.6.1863 2016

  49. [49]

    Simplex Optimization: A Tutorial Approach and Recent Applications in Analytical Chemistry,

    Bezerra, M. A., dos Santos, Q. O., Santos, A. G., Novaes, C. G., Ferreira, S. L. C., and de Souza, V. S., “Simplex Optimization: A Tutorial Approach and Recent Applications in Analytical Chemistry,”Microchemical Journal, Vol. 124, 2016, pp. 45–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.microc.2015.07.023

    work page doi:10.1016/j.microc.2015.07.023 2016

  50. [50]

    Simplex Filter: A Novel Heuristic Filter for Nonlinear Systems State Estimation,

    Nobahari, H., Zandavi, S. M., and Mohammadkarimi, H., “Simplex Filter: A Novel Heuristic Filter for Nonlinear Systems State Estimation,”Applied Soft Computing, Vol. 49, 2016, pp. 474–484. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2016.08.008

    work page doi:10.1016/j.asoc.2016.08.008 2016

  51. [51]

    A Modified Simplex Based Direct Search Optimization Algorithm for Adaptive Transversal FIR Filters,

    Mohsin, A., Alsmadi, Y., Arshad Uppal, A., and Gulfam, S. M., “A Modified Simplex Based Direct Search Optimization Algorithm for Adaptive Transversal FIR Filters,”Science Progress, Vol. 104, No. 2, 2021, p. 00368504211025409. https://doi.org/10.1177/00368504211025409

    work page doi:10.1177/00368504211025409 2021

  52. [52]

    Differential evolution – a simple and efficient heuristic for global optimization over continuous spaces.J

    Storn, R., and Price, K., “Differential Evolution – A Simple and Efficient Heuristic for Global Optimization over Continuous Spaces,” Vol. 11, No. 4, 1997, pp. 341–359. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008202821328

    work page doi:10.1023/a:1008202821328 1997

  53. [53]

    Revisiting Spacetrack Report #3,

    Vallado, D., Crawford, P., Hujsak, R., and Kelso, T. S., “Revisiting Spacetrack Report #3,”AIAA/AAS Astrodynamics Specialist Conference, 2006, p. 6753. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2006-6753. 34

    work page doi:10.2514/6.2006-6753 2006