[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-detail-82811-en":3,"doc-seo-82811-105":30,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":91},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",{"doc_id":7,"user_id":8,"nickname":9,"user_avatar":10,"doc_module":4,"category_id":11,"category_name":12,"doc_title":13,"doc_description":14,"doc_content":15,"file_id":16,"file_url":17,"file_type":18,"file_size":19,"view_count":20,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":21,"is_downloadable":21,"audit_status":21,"page_count":22,"language":23,"language_code":24,"site_id":25,"html_lang":24,"table_of_contents":26,"faqs":27,"seo_title":13,"seo_description":14,"update_tm":28,"read_time":29},82811,4398048950312,"Violet","https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/avatar/400002538284de19e3c?_k=1778320343897328908",8,"Research & Report","Deadline-Bound Finite-Object Delivery over Intermittent LEO Satellite Contact Plans under Residual-Service Accounting","Low-Earth-orbit (LEO) relay networks deliver finite objects such as sensing tiles, telemetry blocks, model updates, and checkpoints over intermittent inter-satellite and space-to-ground contact plans. When an object misses its deadline, partial delivery is insufficient. Splitting across candidate paths can cause quiet accounting failures: path-private evaluation may double-count shared contact service, underestimating completion time. A residual-service-aware delivery layer is proposed to test full deadline feasibility under per-edge FIFO residual service, yielding quantifiable evaluation errors and enlarged feasible payload regions under complementary contacts.","Deadline-Bound Finite-Object Delivery over Intermittent LEO Satellite Contact Plans under Residual-Service Accounting  \nHoutianfu Wang, Student Member, IEEE, O. Tansel Baydas, Student Member, IEEE, Hanlin Cai, Student Member, IEEE, Haofan Dong, Student Member, IEEE, Ozgur B. Akan, Fellow, IEEE  \narXiv :2607 .04405v1 [ ee ss . SP] 5 Jul 2026  \nAbstract—Low-Earth-orbit (LEO) relay networks deliver finite objects—sensing tiles, telemetry blocks, model updates, and checkpoints—over intermittent inter-satellite and space-to-ground contact plans. Partial delivery is insufficient when the complete object misses its deadline. When an object is split across candidate paths, a path-private evaluation can count the same contact service more than once and silently under-count completion. We develop a residual-service-aware delivery layer that consumes candidate paths from contact-plan route generation and tests whether the complete object can be delivered before its deadline under per-edge first-in-first-out residual service. Under controlled shared-contact contention, path-private evaluation under-counts completion by up to 154 s and can report finite completion for a fixed plan with no residual-service completion. For edge-disjoint complementary contacts, the layer reduces to fixed-path service; we derive a sufficient service-budget condition under which twoway striping strictly enlarges the feasible payload region. We verify a restricted exhaustive reference, characterize runtime over a 20–180-satellite procedural contact model, and show that bounded two-way striping reduces mean and median gaps to the restricted reference by about 40%, while P90 and worst-case gaps remain unchanged.  \nIndex Terms—Non-terrestrial mobile systems, LEO satellite networks, finite-object delivery, residual-service accounting, contactplan routing, deadline-aware delivery  \nI. INTRODUCTION  \nLow-Earth-orbit (LEO) systems increasingly support onboard sensing and processing, producing finite data objects whose value depends on timely delivery to the ground. LEO relay networks that carry these objects can be modeled as contact-plan delay-/disruption-tolerant networks, where intersatellite and space-to-ground transmission opportunities appear only during scheduled contact windows [1], [2] . This paper studies the service layer that decides whether a finite data object can be delivered over such intermittent contacts before its deadline. The object may be a sensing tile, telemetry block, model update, checkpoint object, or control-related data product; the common feature is that the complete object is useful only if it reaches the ground before its deadline.  \nA key difficulty is that splitting an object across contacts can create a quiet accounting failure. If two chunks of the same object, or competing objects in the same contact window, consume the same contact service, a path-private evaluation can count that service more than once. Such an evaluation  \nAuthors are with the Center for neXt Communications (CXC) Group, Electrical Engineering Division, Department of Engineering, University of Cambridge, UK. E-mails:{hw680, otb26, hc663, hd489, [oba21](oba21}@cam.ac.uk)[}](oba21}@cam.ac.uk)[@cam.ac.uk](oba21}@cam.ac.uk)  \nOzgur B. Akan is also with the Centre for neXt Communications (CXC), Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Koc¸ University, 34450 Istanbul, T¨urkiye. E-mail: [akan@ku.edu.tr](akan@ku.edu.tr)  \ncan under-count completion time and, under a payload-stress diagnostic, report a finite completion for a fixed plan for which no residual-service completion exists. This failure is not visible from average rate, bottleneck throughput, or link-budget snapshots alone.  \nThe relay infrastructure is itself mobile: LEO nodes move fast enough that connectivity exists only during scheduled contact windows, the RF/optical service rate varies over each contact, and contact capacity is a shared wireless resource. These are the intermittent-connectivit","cbCaih2gYEr8LHfj","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaih2gYEr8LHfj","pdf",1631022,3,1,14,"English","en",105,"# Introduction\n## Key Difficulty and Accounting Failure\n## System Model and Constraints\n## Residual-Service-Aware Delivery Layer\n### Contributions","[{\"question\":\"Why is partial delivery insufficient for finite objects in LEO relay networks?\",\"answer\":\"A finite object remains useful only if the complete payload reaches the ground before its deadline. Missing the deadline makes partial delivery inadequate.\"},{\"question\":\"What causes the “quiet accounting failure” when objects are split across candidate paths?\",\"answer\":\"Path-private evaluation can count the same contact service more than once when chunks or competing objects consume shared contact capacity. This can silently under-count completion time and even report completion for a plan with no residual-service completion.\"},{\"question\":\"How does the proposed residual-service-aware delivery layer avoid incorrect completion accounting?\",\"answer\":\"It consumes candidate paths from contact-plan route generation and evaluates full-object deadline feasibility using per-edge first-in-first-out (FIFO) residual service, keeping contact-service consumption consistent across transmissions.\"}]",1784183115,35,{"code":4,"msg":31,"data":32},"ok",{"site_id":25,"language":24,"slug":33,"title":13,"keywords":34,"description":14,"schema_data":35,"social_meta":86,"head_meta":88,"extra_data":90,"updated_unix":28},"deadline-bound-finite-object-delivery-over-intermittent-leo-satellite-contact-plans-under-residual-service-accounting","",{"@graph":36,"@context":85},[37,53,68],{"@type":38,"itemListElement":39},"BreadcrumbList",[40,44,48,50],{"item":41,"name":42,"@type":43,"position":21},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":45,"name":46,"@type":43,"position":47},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":49,"name":12,"@type":43,"position":20},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/",{"item":51,"name":13,"@type":43,"position":52},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/deadline-bound-finite-object-delivery-over-intermittent-leo-satellite-contact-plans-under-residual-service-accounting/82811/",4,{"url":51,"name":13,"@type":54,"author":55,"headline":13,"publisher":57,"fileFormat":60,"inLanguage":24,"description":14,"dateModified":61,"datePublished":62,"encodingFormat":60,"isAccessibleForFree":63,"interactionStatistic":64},"DigitalDocument",{"name":9,"@type":56},"Person",{"url":41,"name":58,"@type":59},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-07-20","2026-07-16",true,{"@type":65,"interactionType":66,"userInteractionCount":20},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":67},"ViewAction",{"@type":69,"mainEntity":70},"FAQPage",[71,77,81],{"name":72,"@type":73,"acceptedAnswer":74},"Why is partial delivery insufficient for finite objects in LEO relay networks?","Question",{"text":75,"@type":76},"A finite object remains useful only if the complete payload reaches the ground before its deadline. Missing the deadline makes partial delivery inadequate.","Answer",{"name":78,"@type":73,"acceptedAnswer":79},"What causes the “quiet accounting failure” when objects are split across candidate paths?",{"text":80,"@type":76},"Path-private evaluation can count the same contact service more than once when chunks or competing objects consume shared contact capacity. This can silently under-count completion time and even report completion for a plan with no residual-service completion.",{"name":82,"@type":73,"acceptedAnswer":83},"How does the proposed residual-service-aware delivery layer avoid incorrect completion accounting?",{"text":84,"@type":76},"It consumes candidate paths from contact-plan route generation and evaluates full-object deadline feasibility using per-edge first-in-first-out (FIFO) residual service, keeping contact-service consumption consistent across transmissions.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":51,"og:type":87,"og:title":13,"og:site_name":58,"og:description":14},"article",{"robots":89,"canonical":51},"index,follow",{"doc_id":7,"site_id":25},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":92},[93,97,101,105,110,115,120,123,128,131,135],{"id":21,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":46,"category_name":94,"show_sort_weight":95,"slug":96},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":47,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":46,"category_name":98,"show_sort_weight":99,"slug":100},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":46,"category_name":102,"show_sort_weight":103,"slug":104},"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":106,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":46,"category_name":107,"show_sort_weight":108,"slug":109},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":111,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":46,"category_name":112,"show_sort_weight":113,"slug":114},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":116,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":46,"category_name":117,"show_sort_weight":118,"slug":119},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":11,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":46,"category_name":12,"show_sort_weight":121,"slug":122},30,"research-report",{"id":124,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":46,"category_name":125,"show_sort_weight":126,"slug":127},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":126,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":46,"category_name":129,"show_sort_weight":126,"slug":130},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":132,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":46,"category_name":133,"show_sort_weight":132,"slug":134},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":136,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":46,"category_name":137,"show_sort_weight":106,"slug":138},19,"General","general"]