Mobile Agents: A Distributed Voice-Commanded Sensory and Robotic System for Surface EVA Assistance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A model-based, distributed architecture integrates diverse components in a system designed for lunar and planetary surface operations: spacesuit biosensors, cameras, GPS, and a robotic assistant. The system transmits data and assists communication between the extra-vehicular activity (EVA) astronauts, the crew in a local habitat, and a remote mission support team. Software processes ("agents"), implemented in a system called Brahms, run on multiple, mobile platforms, including the spacesuit backpacks, all-terrain vehicles, and robot. These "mobile agents" interpret and transform available data to help people and robotic systems coordinate their actions to make operations more safe and efficient. Different types of agents relate platforms to each other ("proxy agents"), devices to software ("comm agents"), and people to the system ("personal agents"). A state-of-the-art spoken dialogue interface enables people to communicate with their personal agents, supporting a speech-driven navigation and scheduling tool, field observation record, and rover command system. An important aspects of the engineering methodology engineering involves first simulating the entire hardware and software system in Brahms, and then configuring the agents into a runtime system. Design of mobile agent functionality has been. based on ethnographic observation of scientists working in Mars analog settings in the High Canadian Arctic on Devon Island and the southeast Utah desert. The Mobile Agents system is developed iteratively in the context of use, with people doing authentic work. This paper provides a brief introduction to the architecture and emphasizes the method of empirical requirements analysis, through which observation, modeling, design, and testing are integrated in simulated EVA operations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".