Bioinspired consensus-based spacecraft swarm control for autonomous capture of uncooperative targets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This work develops a novel two-phase control framework that enables a swarm of compact spacecraft (agents), such as CubeSats and Nanosats, to autonomously capture tumbling and uncooperative targets. By leveraging decentralized, bio-inspired swarm behavior control and distributed coordination strategies, the proposed system enables fully interchangeable agents to achieve robust, leaderless self-organization. During the capture, flocking behavior guides agents towards the target, while anti-flocking behavior enforces uniform dispersion of agents around it to provide full surface coverage and effective encapsulation prior to capture. A consensus-based protocol synchronizes the capture action among agents by allowing all agents to agree on a common action time. In this process, each agent autonomously identifies available capture points and participates in an auction-based allocation algorithm to collectively allocate optimal capture positions among agents. Simulation results validate the effectiveness of the proposed framework in autonomously capturing targets of various shapes, sizes and motion patterns, and demonstrate scalability across different swarm sizes. Overall, the proposed approach shows significant potential for coordinated, efficient, and robust swarm-based capture of uncooperative targets in space, offering benefits in scalability, adaptability, robustness, and cost-effectiveness.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 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".