Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 25 references

Semi-Decentralized Multi-Spacecraft Collision Avoidance under Communication Constraints

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Semi-decentralized planning, with synchronization governed by ground-station visibility, recovers centralized collision-avoidance performance while using 28.5% fewer information-sharing events.

desk verdict A solid SDec-POMDP framework for spacecraft collision avoidance with a carefully validated reduced state, but the headline 28.5% sync savings is likely overstated because the evaluation rollouts are noise-free. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.26570 v1 pith:HQBUGPSQ submitted 2026-07-29 cs.RO cs.SYeess.SY

Grace Ra Kim , Mahdi Al-Husseini , Duncan Eddy , Mykel J. Kochenderfer This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ROcs.SYeess.SY
keywords collisionavoidancesemi-decentralizedPOMDPspacecraftconjunctioncommunicationconstraintsground-stationvisibilitymulti-agentplanningLEOoperationsmaneuver
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Satellite operators currently plan collision-avoidance maneuvers from intermittent ground-station contacts, so coordination between operators is always delayed and asynchronous. This paper tries to establish how much coordination is actually needed: it formulates two-spacecraft conjunction avoidance as a semi-decentralized POMDP in which synchronization is allowed only when predicted ground-station visibility windows give both sides fresh information. Solving this SDec-POMDP with an approximate heuristic search, it reports that semi-decentralized policies replicate centralized planning to numerical precision across 52 simulated LEO conjunctions, while using 28.5% fewer synchronization events. The paper also shows that synchronization near the maneuver time, not total frequency, is what preserves performance, and that optimized policies land far more rollouts in the desired 4–7 km miss-distance band than rule-based operator heuristics.

What carries the argument

The argument rests on a reduced state: signed along-track separation at closest approach (δp_T), each spacecraft's accumulated along-track velocity deviation, and the stage index k, with the perpendicular miss component p⊥ frozen as a scenario constant. The transition model δp'_T = δp_T + a_rel r(k) plus Gaussian process and maneuver noise captures how joint along-track burns shift the predicted TCA separation, where r(k) is the propagated displacement from an impulse at stage k. This makes the problem a finite SDec-POMDP solvable by approximate Recursive Small-Step Semi-Decentralized A* (RS-SDA*), a heuristic search over partially specified joint policies under a prescribed communication sc

What would settle it

Take the 52 conjunction suite, run the same policies against a truth model that includes higher-order gravity and drag mismodeling rather than the paper's force model, and check whether the reduced-state miss still matches full propagation within the reported 0.055 km maximum error and whether semi-decentralized rollouts still concentrate in the 4–7 km band. A scenario where the perpendicular standoff changes by more than a kilometer under an along-track burn, or where the semi-decentralized policy's mean miss distance departs from the centralized value by more than numerical noise, would inva

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Across 52 representative low-Earth-orbit conjunction scenarios, the centralized planner averages 27.2 synchronization events while the semi-decentralized planner needs 19.4 — a 28.5% reduction — yet both yield identical average planning returns, identical mean propagated miss distances (6.95 km), and indistinguishable maneuver deviations to numerical precision, with no collisions in any rollout for any strategy. The decentralized baseline, with no synchronization at all, remains collision-free but lands far fewer rollouts in the target 4–7 km band (28% versus 61%) and produces larger miss distances (7.94 km mean). The claim is that information flow, not just action selection, should be part

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the reduced model — fixed radial/cross-track standoff p⊥ and along-track separation evolving as δp'_T = δp_T + a_rel r(k) plus Gaussian noise — is accurate enough for maneuver decisions; if real perturbations such as higher-order gravity, drag mismodeling, or maneuver execution biases violate it, the computed policies may not transfer.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Operators can recover near-centralized collision-avoidance quality while cutting operator information-sharing events by about 28.5%.
  • Removing synchronization well before the maneuver is nearly costless; synchronized updates near burn execution carry most of the planning value.
  • Fully decentralized policies are still collision-safe but systematically over-mitigate, so the main benefit of extra communication is mission efficiency rather than safety.
  • Optimized, communication-aware policies place roughly 60% of rollouts in the desired 4–7 km operational band, versus 17–28% for rule-based heuristics.
  • The same planner can be re-parameterized for different ground-station networks, operator reward preferences, or maneuver magnitudes without changing the underlying model.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the result generalizes beyond the 52-scenario suite and the reduced-state approximation, the operational workflow could become: execute a precomputed decentralized policy as a conservative safety baseline, then use ground contacts near the maneuver to refine it — reserving communication bandwidth for the hours that matter.
  • The frozen-p⊥ assumption and the linear r(k) maneuver response are specific to small, along-track, nearly-circular LEO burns; the same planning logic would need a richer state or Monte Carlo policy search for radial/cross-track control or non-circular orbits.
  • The synchronization-reduction pattern suggests a communication-aware scheduling rule: rather than maximizing contact frequency, operators should target the one or two visibility windows around the central maneuver epoch, a testable recommendation for constellation management.
  • Because the observation model only shares along-track separation, a natural next stress test is whether adding covariance or probability-of-collision observations changes which sync opportunities matter.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper formulates two-spacecraft conjunction avoidance as a semi-decentralized POMDP (SDec-POMDP) in which synchronization opportunities are derived from predicted ground-station visibility windows. Policies are computed offline with approximate RS-SDA*, and the approach is evaluated on 52 synthetic LEO conjunction scenarios using high-fidelity Brahe propagation. The central claim is that semi-decentralized planning achieves nearly identical maneuver quality, mean miss distance, and expected return to centralized planning while requiring 28.5% fewer synchronization events than continuous coordination. A greedy schedule-reduction analysis on two representative scenarios further suggests that synchronization opportunities near maneuver execution are the most valuable.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper gives an operational, decision-theoretic framework for a real constraint: intermittent ground-station contacts in multi-operator collision avoidance. The strengths are concrete and mostly in the right places: the SDec-POMDP formulation is well matched to the problem, the scenario suite spans diverse conjunction geometries, the reduced-state representation is explicitly checked against full six-dimensional propagation in Appendix A, and the comparison with rule-based operator heuristics is a useful sanity check. The main weakness is that the headline quantitative result — that 28.5% fewer synchronizations recover centralized performance to numerical precision — rests on an evaluation whose stochastic content is not fully specified and may be deterministic in the state and action execution. The paper also omits standard statistical reporting for its key aggregated numbers. These issues are fixable within the current scope, so the contribution is potentially publishable after major revision.

major comments (3)
  1. [Model Construction and Policy Evaluation] The evaluation appears to be deterministic given the sampled initial conjunction state. The planning model explicitly includes Gaussian process noise and maneuver-execution noise in Eqs. (8)-(10), but the rollout description in the section starting at "Policies are computed offline..." does not state that these noise terms are sampled during closed-loop evaluation. If rollouts are noise-free, synchronization events only correct for initial-state uncertainty, which would artificially reduce the number of syncs needed to match centralized performance. This directly affects the headline 28.5% sync reduction. Please specify the rollout noise model, and add experiments that inject σ_proc and σ_man (and, ideally, drag/J2 mismodeling) during execution, reporting sync counts and miss-distance distributions under those perturbations.
  2. [Results: Semi-Decentralized Performance] The claim that centralized and semi-decentralized planning produce "identical average planning returns, identical mean propagated miss distances (6.95 km), and indistinguishable maneuver deviations to numerical precision" is not accompanied by any standard error, confidence interval, significance test, or per-scenario breakdown. With 200 rollouts per scenario and 52 scenarios, "identical" needs statistical support; otherwise the reader cannot tell whether the observed equivalence is meaningful or an artifact of the deterministic evaluation. Please report per-scenario and aggregated statistics with uncertainty, and clarify whether the equality is exact or rounded to the displayed precision.
  3. [Transition Model / Appendix A] Appendix A validates the frozen-p⊥ approximation only ballistically: it shows that a single along-track burn changes p⊥ by at most about a kilometer and that the reduced miss reproduces the full 3-D miss at TCA for the sampled scenarios. It does not validate the planning transition model used to generate policies, which assumes the linearized maneuver response r(k) and Gaussian noise in Eqs. (6)-(10). The paper provides no sensitivity analysis to errors in r(k), to p⊥ that is not exactly frozen, or to non-Gaussian perturbations. Since the policy is optimized against this model, a mismatch could materially change the synchronization requirements. A sensitivity study varying these modeling assumptions would make the central claim more robust.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Experimental Setup] Figure 7 caption says the initial belief is "a distribution with σ=1.4 km" but does not specify the distribution family or how the 200 rollouts are sampled. Please state the distribution and sampling procedure.
  2. [Figures 8 and 9] The "Delta return vs. centralized" column shows +0.00 for many accepted removals; it is unclear whether these are exactly zero or merely rounded. State the numerical tolerance and whether the acceptance criterion of Eq. (16) with τ=0.001 was applied exactly.
  3. [Reward Function] Equation (12) says the risk component "attains its minimum" when miss distance is below 1 km; since the reward is negative there, this should be the maximum penalty. Also, Figure 3's "optimum" at approximately 5 km is not directly derived in the text; a short derivation or explanation would help.
  4. [Conclusions] The conclusions mention "properly modeled ground-segment communication delays" as future work, but the main text already assumes idealized instantaneous information sharing. It would be clearer to state this assumption in the problem formulation and to discuss its potential impact on the synchronization schedule.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the semi-decentralized comparison is a fresh simulation result; the cited solver and reward design are tools, not fitted predictions.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation chain is self-contained. The reduced state δpT / p⊥ model (Eqs. 4–10) is validated in Appendix A against full 6-D Brahe propagation, and the frozen-p⊥ approximation is checked independently, so the planning model is not an output of the evaluation. The policy evaluation is performed in the continuous Brahe environment over 200 rollouts, and the reported miss distances are propagated truth states, not values fed back into the reward or transition model. The 28.5% sync reduction is a direct count of two fixed communication schedules (ground-visibility-derived C_sync vs. all-stage syncing); it is not obtained by fitting a parameter to the outcome. The greedy schedule-reduction procedure does define 'equivalent' via τ=0.001, but that is an optimization/search procedure, not a derivation of a law. The only citations to prior work are the RS-SDA* solver [20,21], which is a tool; no load-bearing conclusion rests on an unverified self-cited uniqueness theorem or ansatz. Reward design encodes a 4–7 km preference, but that is a standard design choice and does not make the simulation comparison circular. No circular step can be exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 10 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central results rest on several hand-chosen numerical constants (reward weights, noise scales, bin anchors) and on modeling assumptions (frozen-perpendicular state, linear transition, idealized synchronization). None of these are derived from data, and no sensitivity analysis is provided; the quantitative headline (28.5% reduction) should be read as conditional on these choices.

free parameters (10)
  • Maneuver magnitude Δv = 0.5 m/s
    Fixed impulsive along-track burn size; chosen as typical for CA, not justified in the paper.
  • Collision penalty weight = -10^4
    Terminal reward floor for miss ≤ 1 km; chosen to dominate other terms.
  • Screening distance / displacement threshold = 5 km
    Standard CA screening threshold; also displacement penalty threshold.
  • Displacement penalty coefficient = -0.2
    Quadratic penalty for |δp_T| > 5 km; hand-chosen.
  • Maneuver penalty c_man = 2
    Penalty per impulsive burn; set for experiments without sensitivity analysis.
  • Process noise coefficient = 0.15 km/√h
    σ_proc(k) = 0.15·√t_go; chosen to represent state growth uncertainty.
  • Maneuver execution noise coefficient = 0.02·|r(k)|
    Execution error scale; abstracted.
  • Greedy reduction tolerance τ = 0.001
    Allows schedule reduction to keep return within 0.001 of centralized; chosen to be small.
  • Initial belief standard deviation = 1.4 km
    Used in Monte Carlo evaluation (Fig. 7 caption).
  • Bin anchor edges = ±1, ±4, ±5, ±7 km
    Anchored bins at operational thresholds; scenario-dependent edges elsewhere.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The two spacecraft operators jointly optimize a single team reward; no competing objectives.
    The SDec-POMDP formulation uses one reward summed over both agents.
  • domain assumption Perpendicular standoff p⊥ is treated as a scenario-specific constant; along-track maneuvers do not change it.
    State reduction, Eqs. (4)-(5); validated in Appendix A for 52 conjunctions, but only ballistically.
  • domain assumption Transition model δp'_T = δp_T + a_rel r(k) with Gaussian noise captures decision-relevant evolution.
    Eqs. (7)-(10); simplified linear model.
  • domain assumption Synchronization schedule C_sync is fixed and known a priori from predicted GS visibility.
    Problem formulation; planning treats C_sync as input.
  • domain assumption Information sharing at sync stages is instantaneous and lossless (no transmission delays).
    Problem formulation describes an idealized information-sharing mechanism.
  • domain assumption Regime is near-circular LEO, small-eccentricity, with only along-track impulse authority.
    Experimental setup; action space restricted to along-track Δv.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Semi-Decentralized Multi-Spacecraft Collision Avoidance under Communication Constraints." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HQBUGPSQ

@misc{pith2026260726570,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Semi-Decentralized Multi-Spacecraft Collision Avoidance under Communication Constraints},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HQBUGPSQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.26570}
}
read the original abstract

Current spacecraft collision-avoidance operations rely on intermittent ground-station contacts, requiring operators to plan with delayed and asynchronously updated information. Consequently, maneuvers must be planned with only intermittent information sharing between operators, raising the question of how much coordination is needed to achieve collision-avoidance performance comparable to centralized planning. Although decision-theoretic approaches such as partially observable Markov decision processes (POMDPs) capture the sequential and uncertain nature of collision avoidance, existing multiagent extensions typically assume either continuous information sharing or communication models that do not reflect operational ground-station constraints. To explicitly model this intermittent information availability, we formulate the spacecraft-to-spacecraft collision avoidance problem as a semi-decentralized POMDP (SDec-POMDP), where we govern information propagation directly by realistic ground-station visibility windows. Joint maneuver policies are computed using approximate Recursive Small-Step Semi-Decentralized A* (RS-SDA*), following the state-of-the-art A*-based lineage for decentralized multiagent planning. Across a representative suite of conjunction scenarios, semi-decentralized planning recovers near-centralized maneuver quality while requiring 28.5% fewer synchronization events than continuous coordination. Comparisons with representative rule-based operator heuristics further show that communication-aware planning more consistently achieves the desired operational miss-distance band while minimizing unnecessary trajectory deviation. Together, these results establish a practical planning framework for autonomous collision avoidance under realistic intermittent communication, bridging the gap between idealized centralized coordination and fully decentralized planning execution.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.26570 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Ground-station-derived synchronization schedule. Individual spacecraft [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Reduction of the six-dimensional RTN relative state to the reduced planning [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Terminal reward as a function of the miss distance at TCA, plotted on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Six-station ground network used throughout the experiments. Commu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The 52-conjunction evaluation suite, shown as the Earth-centered inertial [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of optimized planners and representative operator heuristic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Distribution of final miss distances at TCA across 52 simulated conjunctions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Greedy synchronization-schedule reduction for a representative head-on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Greedy synchronization-schedule reduction for a representative oblique [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Validation of the reduced conjunction-state representation. Left: a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

25 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Establishing “Norms of Behavior

    D. B. Spencer, M. E. Sorge, and M. A. Skinner, “Establishing “Norms of Behavior” for Satellite Col- lision Avoidance Maneuver Planning,”Journal of Space Safety Engineering, V ol. 11, No. 1, 2024, pp. 120–126, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsse.2023.11.012

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jsse.2023.11.012 2024

  2. [2]

    General Catalog of Artificial Space Objects,

    J. C. McDowell, “General Catalog of Artificial Space Objects,”https://planet4589.org, 2026. Accessed: 2026-07-09

    2026

  3. [3]

    Lessons Learned on Mega-Constellation Deployments and Impact on Space Domain Awareness,

    C. Ramos, D. McKissock, N. Herzer, K. Eppich, B. Bourque, J. Parris, and A. Alexander, “Lessons Learned on Mega-Constellation Deployments and Impact on Space Domain Awareness,”Advanced Maui Optical and Space Surveillance Technologies (AMOS) Conference, 2023

    2023

  4. [4]

    Amazon Leo Status Report,

    Amazon Kuiper Commercial Services LLC, “Amazon Leo Status Report,” tech. rep., Federal Commu- nications Commission. Semi-annual constellation status report

  5. [5]

    Gen 1 and 2 Status Report,

    SpaceX, “Gen 1 and 2 Status Report,” tech. rep., Federal Communications Commission. Semi-annual constellation status report covering June 1, 2025 to May 31, 2026

    2025

  6. [6]

    Space Traffic Management: Improve- ments to Spacecraft Collision Avoidance (COLA),

    M. Sorge, T. Harris, C. Colombo, M. Hejduk, N. Fitz-Coy, R. Sheppard, E. Kerr, U. Das- gupta, N. Berend, D. Escobar, M. Michel, and C. Perez, “Space Traffic Management: Improve- ments to Spacecraft Collision Avoidance (COLA),”Acta Astronautica, V ol. 229, 2025, pp. 600–605, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2025.01.042

    work page doi:10.1016/j.actaastro.2025.01.042 2025

  7. [7]

    Analytical Framework for Space Debris Collision Avoid- ance Maneuver Design,

    J. L. Gonzalo, C. Colombo, and P. Di Lizia, “Analytical Framework for Space Debris Collision Avoid- ance Maneuver Design,”Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, V ol. 44, No. 3, 2021, pp. 469– 487, 10.2514/1.G005398

    work page doi:10.2514/1.g005398 2021

  8. [8]

    Operational Support to Collision Avoidance Activities by ESA’s Space Debris Office,

    V . Braun, T. Flohrer, H. Krag, K. Merz, S. Lemmens, B. Virgili, and Q. Funke, “Operational Support to Collision Avoidance Activities by ESA’s Space Debris Office,”CEAS Space Journal, V ol. 8, 05 2016, 10.1007/s12567-016-0119-3

    work page doi:10.1007/s12567-016-0119-3 2016

Show all 25 references
  1. [9]

    Introducing MISS, a New Tool for Collision Avoidance Analysis and Design,

    J. L. Gonzalo, C. Colombo, and P. Di Lizia, “Introducing MISS, a New Tool for Collision Avoidance Analysis and Design,”Journal of Space Safety Engineering, V ol. 7, No. 3, 2020, pp. 282–289. Space Debris: The State of Art, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsse.2020.07.010

    2020 doi

  2. [10]

    On-Board Collision Avoidance Applications Based on Machine Learn- ing and Analytical Methods,

    J. L. Gonzalo and C. Colombo, “On-Board Collision Avoidance Applications Based on Machine Learn- ing and Analytical Methods,”European Conference on Space Debris, Darmstadt, Germany (virtual),

  3. [12]

    Satellite Trajectory Optimization via Prox- imal Policy Optimization for Space Debris Avoidance,

    L. Luna, J. Ortiz Couder, and R. Alejandro Vargas-Acosta, “Satellite Trajectory Optimization via Prox- imal Policy Optimization for Space Debris Avoidance,”IEEE Access, V ol. 14, 2026, pp. 18138–18154, 10.1109/ACCESS.2026.3655237

    2026

  4. [13]

    Spacecraft Decision-Making Autonomy using Deep Reinforcement Learning,

    A. Harris, T. Teil, and H. Schaub, “Spacecraft Decision-Making Autonomy using Deep Reinforcement Learning,”29th AAS/AIAA space flight mechanics meeting, 2019, pp. 1–19

    2019

  5. [14]

    Artificial Intelligence for a Safe Space: Data and Model Development Trends in Orbit Prediction and Collision Avoidance,

    G. Choumos, K. Tsaprailis, V . Lappas, and C. Kontoes, “Artificial Intelligence for a Safe Space: Data and Model Development Trends in Orbit Prediction and Collision Avoidance,”AIAA SciTech 2024 Fo- rum, 2024, p. 2066

    2024

  6. [15]

    Satellite Collision Avoidance Using Game-Theoretic Frameworks,

    S. Dolan, V . Qin, G. Ding, and H. Balakrishnan, “Satellite Collision Avoidance Using Game-Theoretic Frameworks,”AAS/AIAA Astrodynamics Specialist Conference, 2023

    2023

  7. [16]

    Orbital Satellite Pursuit-Evasion Game-Theoretical Control,

    E. P. Blasch, K. Pham, and D. Shen, “Orbital Satellite Pursuit-Evasion Game-Theoretical Control,” International Conference on Information Science, Signal Processing and their Applications (ISSPA), 2012, pp. 1007–1012, 10.1109/ISSPA.2012.6310436

    2012

  8. [17]

    Automating Satellite Collision Avoidance via Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning,

    Y . Wang, S. Chang, H. Tang, and C. Wang, “Automating Satellite Collision Avoidance via Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning,”International Conference on Computer Information and Big Data Applica- tions, Association for Computing Machinery, 2025, p. 1284–1290, 10.1145/3746709.3746927

    2025

  9. [18]

    Optimal Ground Station Selection for Low-Earth Orbiting Satellites,

    D. Eddy, M. Ho, and M. J. Kochenderfer, “Optimal Ground Station Selection for Low-Earth Orbiting Satellites,”IEEE Aerospace Conference, 2025, pp. 1–13, 10.1109/AERO63441.2025.11068558

    2025

  10. [19]

    Scalable Ground Station Selection for Large LEO Constellations,

    G. R. Kim, D. Eddy, V . Srinivas, and M. J. Kochenderfer, “Scalable Ground Station Selection for Large LEO Constellations,”IEEE Aerospace Conference, 2026, pp. 1–13, 10.1109/AERO66936.2026.11519930

    2026

  11. [20]

    A Semi-Decentralized Approach to Multiagent Control,

    M. Al-Husseini, K. H. Wray, and M. J. Kochenderfer, “A Semi-Decentralized Approach to Multiagent Control,”International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, 2026

    2026

  12. [21]

    Approximate heuristic search for semi-decentralized systems,

    M. Al-Husseini, K. H. Wray, I. R. Ward, and M. J. Kochenderfer, “Approximate heuristic search for semi-decentralized systems,”IJCAI, 2026

    2026

  13. [22]

    NASA Spacecraft Conjunction Assessment and Collision Avoidance for Space Environment Protection,

    NASA, “NASA Spacecraft Conjunction Assessment and Collision Avoidance for Space Environment Protection,” tech. rep., NASA, 2021. 19

    2021

  14. [23]

    Chandramukhi,Debris Collision Avoidance Maneuver Optimization (CAMO) for Satellite Constella- tions

    P. Chandramukhi,Debris Collision Avoidance Maneuver Optimization (CAMO) for Satellite Constella- tions. PhD thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign, Urbana, IL, USA, Dec. 2025

    2025

  15. [24]

    Trajectory Optimization for Spacecraft Collision Avoidance,

    J. W. Sales, “Trajectory Optimization for Spacecraft Collision Avoidance,” Tech. Rep. ADA583484, Defense Technical Information Center, Fort Belvoir, V A, USA, 2013. DTIC report ADA583484

    2013

  16. [25]

    Brahe: A Modern Astrodynamics Library for Research and Engi- neering Applications,

    D. Eddy and M. J. Kochenderfer, “Brahe: A Modern Astrodynamics Library for Research and Engi- neering Applications,” 2026. APPENDIX A: REDUCED STATE-SPACE V ALIDATION The reduced planning state defined in Equation (4) and Equation (5) treats the perpendicular standoffp ⊥ as a ...

    2026

  17. [2021]

    ESA Space Debris Office

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.