Data‐driven mobility risk prediction for planetary rovers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Mobility assessment and prediction continues to be an important and active area of research for planetary rovers, with the need illustrated by multiple examples of high slip events experienced by rovers on Mars. Despite slip versus slope being one of the strongest and most broadly used relationships in mobility prediction, this relationship is nonetheless far from precisely predictable. Although the literature has made significant advances in the predictability of average mobility, the other key related aspect of the problem is the risk caused by edge cases. A key contribution of this study is a metric for explicitly assessing mobility risk based on data‐driven nonparametric slip versus slope relationships. The data‐driven approach is meant to address limitations of past model‐based approaches. The metric is informed by past work in terramechanics relating drawbar pull (i.e., net traction) to slip: High slip fraction (HSF), defined as the proportion of slip data points above 20%. Another contribution is a low complexity mobility prediction framework, the autonomous soil assessment system. Field tests demonstrate that, for sand and gravel, rover trafficability becomes nonlinear and highly variable above the 20% slip threshold. HSF is shown to be a useful metric for categorizing rover‐terrain interactions into low, medium, or high risk, correctly and consistently. Furthermore, the metric is shown to be useful for early detection of potentially hazardous changes in rover‐terrain conditions. The combination of HSF with an appropriately sized queue structure for modeling slip versus slope enables an appropriate balance between responsiveness and stability.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".