Improving Soft-Capture Phase Success in Space Debris Removal Missions: Leveraging Deep Reinforcement Learning and Tactile Feedback
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Traditional control methods effectively manage robot operations using models like motion equations but face challenges with issues of contact and friction, leading to unstable and imprecise controllers that often require manual tweaking. Reinforcement learning, however, has developed as a capable solution for developing robust robot controllers that excel in handling contact-related challenges. In this work, we introduce a deep reinforcement learning approach to tackle the soft-capture phase for free-floating moving targets, mainly space debris, amidst noisy data. Our findings underscore the crucial role of tactile sensors, even during the soft-capturing phase. By employing deep reinforcement learning, we eliminate the need for manual feature design, simplifying the problem and allowing the robot to learn soft-capture strategies through trial and error. To facilitate effective learning of the approach phase, we have crafted a specialized reward function that offers clear and insightful feedback to the agent. Our method is trained entirely within the simulation environment, eliminating the need for direct demonstrations or prior knowledge of the task. The developed control policy shows promising results, highlighting the necessity of using tactile sensor information. The code and simulation results are available at Soft_Capture_Tactile repo.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".