MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391325039 · doi:10.2514/6.2024-0958

A Reinforcement Learning-Based Continuation Strategy for Autonomous On-Orbit Assembly

2024· article· en· W4391325039 on OpenAlexaff
Siavash Tavana, Sepideh Faghihi, Anton de Ruiter, Krishna Dev Kumar

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSpace Satellite Systems and Control
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContinuationReinforcement learningComputer scienceOrbit (dynamics)Artificial intelligenceAerospace engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Autonomous on-orbit assembly operations are critical technologies for space exploration and long-term colonization. Such operations are usually translated into complex optimal control problems requiring advanced methods to solve the resulting nonlinear programming. Nonlinear programming problems are prominent to be highly sensitive to the initial guess provided to the solver. To alleviate this situation, this paper presents a continuation strategy that significantly desensitizes the optimal control problem to the given initial guess. It became possible by forming a continuation space between a trivial problem with a known optimal solution and the desired optimal control problem using the allocation of some state, control, or constraint variables as the continuation parameters. To this end, a reinforcement learning search agent was defined based on the Sarsa(��) method to search the continuation space in real time for a continuation trajectory satisfying some desired criteria. Numerical experiments concerning the autonomous assembly of a robotic spacecraft with a complex target structure were performed to demonstrate the efficiency and capability of the proposed technique. Through various simulations, it has been shown how the complexity of the components’ shapes and the size of the problem affect the solver’s 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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

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 score0.975
Threshold uncertainty score0.431

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSpace Satellite Systems and ControlFrench-language works237,207