MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411183367 · doi:10.2514/1.g008786

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

2025· article· en· W4411183367 on OpenAlexafffund
Siavash Tavana, Sepideh Faghihi, Anton de Ruiter, Krishna Dev Kumar

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Guidance Control and Dynamics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSpace Satellite Systems and Control
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsContinuationReinforcement learningOrbit (dynamics)Computer scienceReinforcementControl theory (sociology)Artificial intelligenceAerospace engineeringEngineeringControl (management)Structural engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Autonomous on-orbit assembly operations are usually translated into complex optimal control problems requiring advanced methods to solve. Solved through either direct methods or indirect methods, these optimal control problems are known to be highly sensitive to the initial guess provided to the solver. This paper proposes an algorithm to reduce the problem’s sensitivity to the initial guess by integrating the continuation method and the notion of reinforcement learning. To this end, a continuation space is formed from a trivial problem with a known solution to the desired optimal control problem. A set of continuation parameters, selected from the state, control, or constraint variables, forms the basis for this continuation space. Finding a suitable continuation path is problematic since it requires a comprehensive search algorithm that considers several factors, such as the choice of continuation parameters and continuation steps for each parameter, to find an appropriate path. To search for this path, a reinforcement learning search agent was proposed based on the Sarsa([Formula: see text]) method to traverse the continuation space in real-time for a continuation trajectory satisfying some desired criteria. Numerical experiments were conducted for a series of autonomous on-orbit assembly operations using robotic spacecraft to demonstrate the capability of the proposed technique. Various simulations with different reward functions showed that the shape and size of the objects in the assembly environment 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 score0.971
Threshold uncertainty score0.523

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Guidance Control and DynamicsSame topicSpace Satellite Systems and ControlFrench-language works237,207