用AI自动研究航天器控制,结果可审计、抗随机噪声干扰。
Agentic AutoResearch forSpace Autonomy: An Auditable, LLM-Driven Research Agent for Aerospace Control Problems

- 大模型自主优化控制策略,每轮只改一个训练脚本参数。
- 结果需通过三重验证:噪声水平、重跑确认、剔除编辑测试。
- 在两个航天任务中均超越随机搜索,稳定避开禁区。
航天器制导、导航与控制正越来越多地由专家求解器提炼出的策略实现。开发此类策略本身是研究过程:研究者需选择架构与超参数,运行实验,并判断性能提升是否真实而非种子噪声所致。本文提出 AutoResearch 框架,让大语言模型作为离线研究代理,自主驱动这一循环,同时嵌入可信度层,在每次迭代中以问题自身的种子噪声为基准验证结果。语言模型仅用于生成控制策略,训练好的策略才部署于航天器,模型本身不参与实时控制。每轮循环中,代理读取自然语言描述和历史记录,提出单次训练脚本修改,执行并记录结果。任何结果必须通过三项检查:测量问题种子噪声、最佳配置重启动验证、删除代理编辑后的留一法剪枝。该流程不变地应用于两个航天控制问题:基于 Clohessy-Wiltshire 的相对交会对接,以及带安全约束的避障对接任务(避开禁飞区)。在两例中,经审计的策略均远超测量种子噪声多个标准差;而盲目搜索在相同参数空间内无法达成。在对接任务中差距更明显:盲目搜索未获得可行策略,而所学策略在所有种子下均保持禁飞区外。
原文摘要 · Abstract (English)
Spacecraft guidance, navigation, and control functions are increasingly realized as learned policies distilled from expert solvers. Developing such a policy is itself a research process: an investigator selects an architecture and hyperparameters, runs experiments, and must determine whether an apparent improvement is genuine or merely seed noise. This paper presents AutoResearch, a framework in which a large language model autonomously drives that loop for aerospace control problems, coupled with a credibility layer, built into the loop, that certifies each reported result against the problem's own measured seed noise. The language model serves only as the offline research agent that develops the control policy; the trained policy it produces is then deployed onboard the spacecraft, while the model itself never operates the vehicle. At each iteration the agent reads a plain-language problem description and the run history, proposes a single edit to the training script, executes it, and logs the outcome. No reported result is credited until it passes the same three checks: measured per-problem seed noise, reseeded verification of the best configuration, and leave-one-out pruning of the agent's edits. The same loop is applied, unchanged, to two aerospace control problems: a Clohessy-Wiltshire relative rendezvous and a safety-constrained collision-avoidance docking past a keep-out zone, each calibrated against a known optimal control benchmark. In both, the audited policy clears the measured seed noise by many standard deviations; an undirected search over the same parameters does not. On the docking problem the gap becomes categorical: undirected search yields no feasible policy, while the learned policy stays outside the keep-out zone on every seed.
Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品;中文卡片由大模型生成,请以原文为准。