MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2997531993 · doi:10.2514/6.2020-1600

On Deep Reinforcement Learning for Spacecraft Guidance

2020· article· en· W2997531993 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAIAA Scitech 2020 Forum · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSpace Satellite Systems and Control
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReinforcement learningComputer scienceSpacecraftArtificial intelligenceDeep learningController (irrigation)Control engineeringSimulationEngineeringAerospace engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper introduces a novel technique, named deep guidance, that leverages deep reinforcement learning, a branch of artificial intelligence, that enables guidance strategies to be learned rather than designed. The deep guidance technique consists of a learned guidance strategy that feeds velocity commands to a conventional controller to track. Control theory is combined with deep reinforcement learning in order to lower the learning burden and facilitate the transfer of the trained system from simulation to reality. In this paper, a proof-of-concept spacecraft pose tracking and docking scenario is considered, in simulation and experiment, to test the feasibility of the proposed approach. Results show that such a system can be trained entirely in simulation and transferred to reality with comparable performance.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.991
Threshold uncertainty score0.820

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.198 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it