Multi Criteria Decision Making for the Multi-Satellite Image Acquisition Scheduling Problem
The multi-satellite image acquisition scheduling problem is traditionally seen as a complex optimization problem containing a generic objective function that represents the priority structure of the satellite operator. However, the majority of literature neglect the collective and contemporary effec...
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
MDPI AG
2020-02-01
|
| Series: | Sensors |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/20/5/1242 |
| _version_ | 1811299508585234432 |
|---|---|
| author | Alex Elkjær Vasegaard Mathieu Picard Florent Hennart Peter Nielsen Subrata Saha |
| author_facet | Alex Elkjær Vasegaard Mathieu Picard Florent Hennart Peter Nielsen Subrata Saha |
| author_sort | Alex Elkjær Vasegaard |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | The multi-satellite image acquisition scheduling problem is traditionally seen as a complex optimization problem containing a generic objective function that represents the priority structure of the satellite operator. However, the majority of literature neglect the collective and contemporary effect of factors associated with the operational goal in the objective function, i.e., uncertainty in cloud cover, customer priority, image quality criteria, etc. Consequently, the focus of the article is to integrate a real-time scoring approach of imaging attempts that considers these aspects. This is accomplished in a multi-satellite planning environment, through the utilization of the multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) models, Elimination and Choice Expressing Reality (ELECTRE-III) and the Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS), and the formulation of a binary linear programming model. The two scoring approaches belong to different model classes of MCDM, respectively an outranking approach and a distance to ideal point approach, and they are compared with a naive approach. Numerical experiments are conducted to validate the models and illustrate the importance of criteria neglected in previous studies. The results demonstrate the customized behaviour allowed by MCDM methods, especially the ELECTRE-III approach. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-13T06:36:52Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-bedea223b55142d9bef5a2eba8180e26 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1424-8220 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-13T06:36:52Z |
| publishDate | 2020-02-01 |
| publisher | MDPI AG |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Sensors |
| spelling | doaj.art-bedea223b55142d9bef5a2eba8180e262022-12-22T02:57:54ZengMDPI AGSensors1424-82202020-02-01205124210.3390/s20051242s20051242Multi Criteria Decision Making for the Multi-Satellite Image Acquisition Scheduling ProblemAlex Elkjær Vasegaard0Mathieu Picard1Florent Hennart2Peter Nielsen3Subrata Saha4Department of Materials and Production, Aalborg University, 9220 Aalborg, DenmarkAirbus Defence and Space, Toulouse Area, 31555 Toulouse, FranceAirbus Defence and Space, Toulouse Area, 31555 Toulouse, FranceDepartment of Materials and Production, Aalborg University, 9220 Aalborg, DenmarkDepartment of Materials and Production, Aalborg University, 9220 Aalborg, DenmarkThe multi-satellite image acquisition scheduling problem is traditionally seen as a complex optimization problem containing a generic objective function that represents the priority structure of the satellite operator. However, the majority of literature neglect the collective and contemporary effect of factors associated with the operational goal in the objective function, i.e., uncertainty in cloud cover, customer priority, image quality criteria, etc. Consequently, the focus of the article is to integrate a real-time scoring approach of imaging attempts that considers these aspects. This is accomplished in a multi-satellite planning environment, through the utilization of the multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) models, Elimination and Choice Expressing Reality (ELECTRE-III) and the Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS), and the formulation of a binary linear programming model. The two scoring approaches belong to different model classes of MCDM, respectively an outranking approach and a distance to ideal point approach, and they are compared with a naive approach. Numerical experiments are conducted to validate the models and illustrate the importance of criteria neglected in previous studies. The results demonstrate the customized behaviour allowed by MCDM methods, especially the ELECTRE-III approach.https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/20/5/1242earth observing satellitesatellite image acquisition scheduling problemimage collectionmultiple-criteria decision makingelectre-iiitopsisbinary linear programming |
| spellingShingle | Alex Elkjær Vasegaard Mathieu Picard Florent Hennart Peter Nielsen Subrata Saha Multi Criteria Decision Making for the Multi-Satellite Image Acquisition Scheduling Problem Sensors earth observing satellite satellite image acquisition scheduling problem image collection multiple-criteria decision making electre-iii topsis binary linear programming |
| title | Multi Criteria Decision Making for the Multi-Satellite Image Acquisition Scheduling Problem |
| title_full | Multi Criteria Decision Making for the Multi-Satellite Image Acquisition Scheduling Problem |
| title_fullStr | Multi Criteria Decision Making for the Multi-Satellite Image Acquisition Scheduling Problem |
| title_full_unstemmed | Multi Criteria Decision Making for the Multi-Satellite Image Acquisition Scheduling Problem |
| title_short | Multi Criteria Decision Making for the Multi-Satellite Image Acquisition Scheduling Problem |
| title_sort | multi criteria decision making for the multi satellite image acquisition scheduling problem |
| topic | earth observing satellite satellite image acquisition scheduling problem image collection multiple-criteria decision making electre-iii topsis binary linear programming |
| url | https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/20/5/1242 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT alexelkjærvasegaard multicriteriadecisionmakingforthemultisatelliteimageacquisitionschedulingproblem AT mathieupicard multicriteriadecisionmakingforthemultisatelliteimageacquisitionschedulingproblem AT florenthennart multicriteriadecisionmakingforthemultisatelliteimageacquisitionschedulingproblem AT peternielsen multicriteriadecisionmakingforthemultisatelliteimageacquisitionschedulingproblem AT subratasaha multicriteriadecisionmakingforthemultisatelliteimageacquisitionschedulingproblem |