Validation of Autonomous Hazard-Avoidance Mars Landing via Closed-Loop Simulations
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Future planetary exploration missions will aim at landing a spacecraft in hazardous regions of a planet, thereby requiring the ability to autonomously perform the critical landing operations, including the avoidance of surface obstacles and the identification of the best landing site. These algorithms are rather complex and cannot be tested easily at moderate cost on a real system. Therefore, closed-loop software simulator tools are required to validate these new technologies, generate new advancements and help plan for future planetary exploration missions. This paper presents a closed-loop planetary landing simulator and its use in the validation of the hazard-avoidance landing technologies. The simulator emulates the real world with a 7-degree-offreedom landing dynamics, models of sensors and actuators and it closes the control loop with the on-board software that provides the “intelligence” to the landing vehicle. The paper will provide an overview of the Lidar-based guidance, navigation and control functions and it will demonstrate their successful validation through Monte Carlo simulations using the simulator adapted to a Mars landing mission.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it