arxiv: 2604.17176 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-19 · 📡 eess.SY · cs.AI· cs.SY· math.OC

Recognition: unknown

Intent-aligned Autonomous Spacecraft Guidance via Reasoning Models

Yuji Takubo , Simone D'Amico

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 06:37 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 📡 eess.SY cs.AIcs.SYmath.OC

keywords spacecraft guidanceautonomous systemstrajectory optimizationintent alignmentbehavior sequenceswaypoint constraintsfoundation modelssafe autonomy

0 comments

The pith

A spacecraft guidance framework uses intermediate behavior abstractions to align foundation model predictions with safe trajectory optimization.

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

The paper establishes that connecting high-level reasoning from foundation models to safe trajectory optimization requires explicit intermediate steps: first predicting intent-aligned behavior plans, then generating waypoint constraints from them, and finally optimizing the trajectory under safety constraints. This decomposition supports scalable supervision of the system without compromising safety. In close-proximity operation tests, it reaches over 90 percent convergence in sequential convex programming and produces intent-satisfying trajectories 1.5 times more often than heuristic approaches. A sympathetic reader would care because future spacecraft must interpret mission intent autonomously yet remain safe without constant expert reformulation of optimization problems.

Core claim

The framework proposes linking high-level reasoning and safe trajectory optimization through explicit intermediate abstractions based on behavior sequences and waypoint constraints. A foundation model predicts an intent-aligned behavior plan, a waypoint generation model converts it into waypoint constraints, and the safe trajectory is computed via optimization. This enables scalable supervision without sacrificing safety, as demonstrated by numerical experiments showing over 90% SCP convergence and 1.5 times higher rate of generating trajectories that satisfy top intent-prioritized performance criteria compared to heuristic decision-making.

What carries the argument

The intermediate abstractions of behavior sequences and waypoint constraints that translate intent predictions into optimization constraints while preserving safety.

If this is right

The proposed pipeline achieves over 90% SCP convergence in close-proximity operation scenarios.
It yields a 1.5 times higher rate of generating trajectories that satisfy the top intent-prioritized performance criteria than heuristic decision-making.
The results support the use of intermediate behavior abstraction as a practical interface between foundation-model reasoning and safety-critical onboard spacecraft autonomy.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The same abstraction layer could reduce reliance on expert-crafted formulations in other autonomous systems such as aerial vehicles or robotic manipulators.
Experiments that deliberately inject noise into the foundation model's intent predictions would test how robust the waypoint conversion step remains.
Hardware-in-the-loop tests on actual spacecraft processors would check whether the three-stage pipeline fits real-time computational budgets.

Load-bearing premise

That the intermediate abstractions of behavior sequences and waypoint constraints can reliably translate high-level intent predictions into constraints that preserve both safety and intent alignment during optimization.

What would settle it

If additional close-proximity experiments show SCP convergence falling substantially below 90 percent or intent-satisfying trajectories no longer exceeding heuristic rates by the reported margin, the translation from intent to safe trajectories would not hold.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.17176 by Simone D'Amico, Yuji Takubo.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Training and deployment of the proposed intent-to-trajectory pipeline. The framework comprises (i) a reasoning model that predicts a behavior sequence from scenario context and high-level intent, (ii) a waypoint generator that produces waypoint constraints, and (iii) an SCP solver that enforces dynamics and safety. Training: the waypoint generator is trained first using SCP rollouts; the reasoning model is… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Representative Trajectory Generation. priority = {fuel, time, observation, safety margin}, and the reasoning trace is a single sentence that references one or two top-priority metrics. This structured interface enables scalable dataset construction. Importantly, at deployment, the reasoning model does not observe downstream waypointor trajectory-level metrics; it must infer a behavior sequence solely from… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Distribution of the reward function R(y; X) across different waypoint generation models. 11. LLM Prompts 11.1. Annotation of reasoning traces from tabularized metrics Generation of behavior sequence with reasoning (GPT-4o-mini) System: You're an expert spacecraft operator for rendezvous missions. You select one trajectory candidate from metric tables. Follow the priority order (lexicographic), not weight… view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Future spacecraft operations require autonomy that can interpret high-level mission intent while preserving safety. However, existing trajectory optimization still relies heavily on expert-crafted formulations and does not support intent-conditioned decision-making. This paper proposes an intent-aligned spacecraft guidance framework that links high-level reasoning and safe trajectory optimization through explicit intermediate abstractions, based on behavior sequences and waypoint constraints. A foundation model first predicts an intent-aligned behavior plan, a waypoint generation model then converts it into waypoint constraints, and the safe trajectory is computed via optimization. This decomposition enables scalable supervision without sacrificing safety. Numerical experiments in close-proximity operation scenarios demonstrate that the proposed pipeline achieves over 90\% SCP convergence and yields a $1.5\times$ higher rate of generating trajectories that satisfy the top intent-prioritized performance criteria than heuristic decision-making. These results support the use of intermediate behavior abstraction as a practical interface between foundation-model reasoning and safety-critical onboard spacecraft autonomy.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper introduces a modular pipeline routing foundation model behavior sequences through waypoint constraints into safe trajectory optimization, with reported gains in convergence and intent alignment, but the interface robustness is untested.

read the letter

The main takeaway is that this work gives a concrete way to connect high-level intent from reasoning models to safe spacecraft trajectories by inserting behavior sequences and waypoint constraints as the explicit bridge. The numerical experiments claim over 90% SCP convergence and a 1.5 times higher rate of meeting top intent criteria than heuristics in close-proximity cases. That decomposition is the actual novelty here, since prior spacecraft guidance work does not typically expose this kind of intermediate abstraction for scalable supervision while keeping the optimizer untouched. The paper does a reasonable job spelling out the three-stage pipeline and showing end-to-end numerical improvement on the final trajectories. The soft spot is exactly the one flagged in the stress-test: there is no evidence that the waypoint generation step preserves safety or feasibility when the upstream behavior predictions contain inconsistencies, which foundation models are known to produce. The results only report aggregate success on the optimized paths, with no breakdown of how often the derived constraints become problematic or how the system behaves outside the training distribution. The abstract also omits any description of the experimental setup, specific baselines, or statistical tests, so the strength of the 1.5 times claim is hard to judge. This is for people working on autonomous space systems who want to bring modern reasoning models into guidance loops without breaking safety guarantees. It deserves a serious referee because the interface idea is specific enough to be critiqued and improved, even if the current validation is preliminary. I would send it out for review rather than desk reject.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes an intent-aligned autonomous spacecraft guidance framework that decomposes the problem into three stages: a foundation model predicts an intent-aligned behavior plan from high-level mission intent; a waypoint generation model converts this plan into explicit waypoint constraints; and a sequential convex programming (SCP) solver computes a safe trajectory satisfying those constraints. The central claim is that this explicit intermediate abstraction layer enables scalable supervision and intent-conditioned autonomy without sacrificing safety. Numerical experiments in close-proximity operation scenarios are reported to achieve over 90% SCP convergence and a 1.5× higher rate of generating trajectories that satisfy top intent-prioritized performance criteria compared to heuristic decision-making.

Significance. If the performance claims hold under rigorous validation, the work could meaningfully advance safe autonomy for spacecraft by providing a practical interface between high-level reasoning models and safety-critical optimization. The explicit modular decomposition via behavior sequences and waypoint constraints is a clear strength, as it supports interpretability, targeted supervision, and potential transferability across missions. This approach addresses a genuine gap between expert-crafted trajectory optimization and emerging foundation-model capabilities in aerospace systems.

major comments (2)

[Numerical experiments] Numerical experiments paragraph: the reported >90% SCP convergence and 1.5× improvement in intent-prioritized criteria lack any description of the experimental setup (number of trials, Monte Carlo sampling, specific close-proximity scenarios), baseline implementations, statistical significance tests, or metrics for measuring intent satisfaction. Without these, the central performance claims cannot be assessed for robustness or confounding factors.
[Framework description] Framework description (behavior sequence to waypoint constraints): no analysis, bounds, or ablation is provided on how the waypoint generation step handles inconsistencies or errors in the foundation model's behavior predictions. This translation is load-bearing for the safety-preservation and convergence claims, yet the manuscript only evaluates final trajectories without reporting infeasibility rates or safety violations at the constraint-generation stage.

minor comments (1)

[Abstract] The acronym SCP should be expanded on first use in the abstract and main text (Sequential Convex Programming).

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the insightful comments, which highlight areas where additional details will strengthen the presentation of our intent-aligned guidance framework. We address each major comment below and commit to revisions that enhance the manuscript's clarity and completeness without altering the core contributions.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: Numerical experiments paragraph: the reported >90% SCP convergence and 1.5× improvement in intent-prioritized criteria lack any description of the experimental setup (number of trials, Monte Carlo sampling, specific close-proximity scenarios), baseline implementations, statistical significance tests, or metrics for measuring intent satisfaction. Without these, the central performance claims cannot be assessed for robustness or confounding factors.

Authors: We agree with the referee that the experimental details require expansion for full reproducibility and assessment. In the revised manuscript, we will add a comprehensive description of the experimental setup, including the number of trials performed, the Monte Carlo sampling strategy, the specific close-proximity scenarios considered, the baseline heuristic implementations, the statistical significance tests applied, and explicit definitions of the intent satisfaction metrics. This will directly address the concerns regarding robustness and potential confounding factors. We believe these additions will make the performance claims more verifiable. revision: yes
Referee: Framework description (behavior sequence to waypoint constraints): no analysis, bounds, or ablation is provided on how the waypoint generation step handles inconsistencies or errors in the foundation model's behavior predictions. This translation is load-bearing for the safety-preservation and convergence claims, yet the manuscript only evaluates final trajectories without reporting infeasibility rates or safety violations at the constraint-generation stage.

Authors: The referee correctly identifies that the manuscript does not provide explicit analysis or ablations on error handling in the waypoint generation step. While the framework is designed such that the waypoint constraints incorporate safety margins to mitigate potential inconsistencies from the foundation model, we acknowledge the lack of quantitative reporting on infeasibility rates at this intermediate stage. In the revision, we will include an analysis of this translation step, including bounds on error propagation where possible, and report any observed infeasibility or safety violation rates during constraint generation. This will better substantiate the safety-preservation claims. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity detected in derivation or performance claims

full rationale

The paper describes a modular pipeline with three explicit stages (foundation-model behavior prediction, waypoint constraint generation, and SCP-based trajectory optimization) whose claimed benefits are supported solely by numerical experiments on close-proximity scenarios. No equations, fitted parameters, or self-citations are shown to reduce the reported >90% convergence rate or 1.5× intent-alignment improvement to quantities defined by the inputs themselves. The intermediate abstractions are presented as an engineering interface rather than a mathematical identity, and the performance metrics are measured on final trajectories without any self-referential redefinition of success criteria. The derivation chain therefore remains self-contained and externally falsifiable via the described experiments.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Based solely on the abstract, no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are identifiable. The framework introduces behavior sequences and waypoint constraints as methodological abstractions rather than new postulated entities with independent evidence.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5457 in / 1099 out tokens · 43105 ms · 2026-05-10T06:37:00.473628+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

[1]

Learning-based Warm-Starting for Fast Sequential Convex Programming and Trajectory Optimiza- tion

Somrita Banerjee, Thomas Lew, Riccardo Bonalli, Abdulaziz Alfaadhel, Ibrahim Abdulaziz Alomar, Hesham M Shageer, and Marco Pavone. Learning-based Warm-Starting for Fast Sequential Convex Programming and Trajectory Optimiza- tion. InIEEE Aerospace Conference, pages 1–8, 2020. 1

2020
[2]

Bonalli, A

R. Bonalli, A. Cauligi, A. Bylard, and M. Pavone. GuSTO: Guaranteed sequential trajectory optimization via sequential convex programming. InIEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), Montreal, May, 2019. 1

2019
[3]

Do as i can, not as i say: Grounding language in robotic affordances

Anthony Brohan, Yevgen Chebotar, Chelsea Finn, Karol Hausman, Alexander Herzog, Daniel Ho, Julian Ibarz, Alex Irpan, Eric Jang, Ryan Julian, et al. Do as i can, not as i say: Grounding language in robotic affordances. InConference on robot learning, pages 287–318. PMLR, 2023. 2

2023
[4]

Large language models as autonomous spacecraft operators in kerbal space program.Advances in Space Research, 2025

Alejandro Carrasco, Victor Rodriguez-Fernandez, and Richard Linares. Large language models as autonomous spacecraft operators in kerbal space program.Advances in Space Research, 2025. 2

2025
[5]

Generalizable space- craft trajectory generation via multimodal learning with trans- formers

Davide Celestini, Amirhossein Afsharrad, Daniele Gammelli, Tommaso Guffanti, Gioele Zardini, Sanjay Lall, Elisa Capello, Simone D’Amico, and Marco Pavone. Generalizable space- craft trajectory generation via multimodal learning with trans- formers. In2025 American Control Conference (ACC), pages 3558–3565. IEEE, 2025. 1

2025
[6]

D’Amico.Autonomous Formation Flying in Low Earth Orbit.PhD Thesis, Delft University, 2010

S. D’Amico.Autonomous Formation Flying in Low Earth Orbit.PhD Thesis, Delft University, 2010. 1, 2

2010
[7]

Continuous-time successive convexification for constrained trajectory optimiza- tion.Automatica, 180:112464, 2025

Purnanand Elango, Dayou Luo, Abhinav G Kamath, Samet Uzun, Taewan Kim, and Behçet Açıkme¸ se. Continuous-time successive convexification for constrained trajectory optimiza- tion.Automatica, 180:112464, 2025. 1

2025
[8]

Space-llava: A vision-language model adapted to extraterrestrial applications

Matthew Foutter, Daniele Gammelli, Justin Kruger, Ethan Foss, Praneet Bhoj, Tommaso Guffanti, Simone D’Amico, and Marco Pavone. Space-llava: A vision-language model adapted to extraterrestrial applications. In2025 IEEE Aerospace Conference, pages 1–23, 2025. 2

2025
[9]

A simplified model of midcourse maneuver execution errors

Clarence R Gates. A simplified model of midcourse maneuver execution errors. Technical report, 1963. 1

1963
[10]

Guffanti and S

T. Guffanti and S. D’Amico. Passively Safe and Robust Multi- Agent Optimal Control with Application to Distributed Space Systems.AIAA Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 46(8):1448–1469, 2023. 2

2023
[11]

Transformers for trajectory optimization with application to spacecraft rendezvous

Tommaso Guffanti, Daniele Gammelli, Simone D’Amico, and Marco Pavone. Transformers for trajectory optimization with application to spacecraft rendezvous. InIEEE Aerospace Conference, pages 1–13, 2024. 1

2024
[12]

Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models.Iclr, 1 (2):3, 2022

Edward J Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Liang Wang, Weizhu Chen, et al. Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models.Iclr, 1 (2):3, 2022. 3

2022
[13]

VoxPoser: Composable 3D Value Maps for Robotic Manipulation with Language Models

Wenlong Huang, Chen Wang, Ruohan Zhang, Yunzhu Li, Jiajun Wu, and Li Fei-Fei. V oxposer: Composable 3d value maps for robotic manipulation with language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.05973, 2023. 2

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2023
[14]

Autonomous reasoning for spacecraft control: A large language model framework with group relative policy optimization.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.04334, 2026

Amit Jain and Richard Linares. Autonomous reasoning for spacecraft control: A large language model framework with group relative policy optimization.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.04334, 2026. 2

work page arXiv 2026
[15]

Vision-language-action models for robotics: A review towards real-world applications.IEEE Access, 2025

Kento Kawaharazuka, Jihoon Oh, Jun Yamada, Ingmar Pos- ner, and Yuke Zhu. Vision-language-action models for robotics: A review towards real-world applications.IEEE Access, 2025. 1, 2

2025
[16]

Guided policy search using sequential convex programming for initialization of trajectory optimization algo- rithms

Taewan Kim, Purnanand Elango, Danylo Malyuta, and Be- hçet Açıkme¸ se. Guided policy search using sequential convex programming for initialization of trajectory optimization algo- rithms. In2022 American Control Conference (ACC), pages 3572–3578. IEEE, 2022. 1

2022
[17]

New state transition matrices for spacecraft relative motion in perturbed orbits.Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynam- ics, 40(7):1749–1768, 2017

Adam W Koenig, Tommaso Guffanti, and Simone D’Amico. New state transition matrices for spacecraft relative motion in perturbed orbits.Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynam- ics, 40(7):1749–1768, 2017. 1

2017
[18]

Language conditioned imitation learning over unstructured data,

Corey Lynch and Pierre Sermanet. Language conditioned imitation learning over unstructured data.arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.07648, 2020. 1

work page arXiv 2005
[19]

Malyuta, T

D. Malyuta, T. P. Reynolds, M. Szmuk, T. Lew, R. Bonalli, M. Pavone, and B. Açıkme¸ se. Convex Optimization for Tra- jectory Generation: A Tutorial on Generating Dynamically Feasible Trajectories Reliably and Efficiently.IEEE Control Systems Magazine, 42(5):40–113, 2022. 1, 3

2022
[20]

Succes- sive convexification of non-convex optimal control problems and its convergence properties

Yuanqi Mao, Michael Szmuk, and Behçet Açıkme¸ se. Succes- sive convexification of non-convex optimal control problems and its convergence properties. In2016 IEEE 55th Con- ference on Decision and Control (CDC), pages 3636–3641. IEEE, 2016. 1

2016
[21]

Successive convexification with feasibility guarantee via augmented lagrangian for non-convex optimal control problems

Kenshiro Oguri. Successive convexification with feasibility guarantee via augmented lagrangian for non-convex optimal control problems. InProc. IEEE Conf. on Decision and Control, pages 3296–3302. IEEE, 2023. 1

2023
[22]

Michael Szmuk, Taylor P Reynolds, and Behçet Açık- me¸ se. Successive convexification for real-time six-degree- of-freedom powered descent guidance with state-triggered constraints.Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 43 (8):1399–1413, 2020. 1

2020
[23]

Towards robust spacecraft trajectory optimization via transformers

Yuji Takubo, Tommaso Guffanti, Daniele Gammelli, Marco Pavone, and Simone D’Amico. Towards robust spacecraft trajectory optimization via transformers. InIEEE Aerospace Conference, 2025. 1, 2

2025
[24]

Semantic trajectory generation for goal-oriented spacecraft rendezvous

Yuji Takubo, Arpit Dwivedi, Sukeerth Ramkumar, Luis A Pabon, Daniele Gammelli, Marco Pavone, and Simone D’Amico. Semantic trajectory generation for goal-oriented spacecraft rendezvous. InAIAA SCITECH 2026 Forum, 2026. 2

2026
[25]

Agile tradespace exploration for space rendezvous mission design via transformers

Yuji Takubo, Daniele Gammelli, Marco Pavone, and Simone D’Amico. Agile tradespace exploration for space rendezvous mission design via transformers. InIEEE Aerospace Confer- ence, 2026. 2, 1

2026
[26]

Alpamayo-r1: Bridging reasoning and action prediction for generalizable autonomous driving in the long tail.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.00088, 2025

Yan Wang, Wenjie Luo, Junjie Bai, Yulong Cao, Tong Che, Ke Chen, Yuxiao Chen, Jenna Diamond, Yifan Ding, Wenhao Ding, et al. Alpamayo-r1: Bridging reasoning and action prediction for generalizable autonomous driving in the long tail.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.00088, 2025. 1, 2 Intent-aligned Autonomous Spacecraft Guidance via Reasoning Models Supplementary...

work page arXiv 2025
[27]

(1) solves for an optimal open-loop trajectory that is robust to the uncer- tainty

Nonconvex Trajectory Generation The nonconvex trajectory optimization in Eq. (1) solves for an optimal open-loop trajectory that is robust to the uncer- tainty. Discrete-time dynamics of the qnsROE space are expressed in Eq. (1b). In particular, Φ(tj+1, tj)∈R 6×6 is the state transition matrix of qnsROE with the secular J2 effect [17] and Γj = Γ(t j)∈R 6×...
[28]

Dataset generation with waypoint/behavior primitive graph The generated dataset is constructed from five domains in the qnsROE space, summarized in Table 3

Waypoint Generation Model 8.1. Dataset generation with waypoint/behavior primitive graph The generated dataset is constructed from five domains in the qnsROE space, summarized in Table 3. Note that δa= δex =δi x = 0 is set so that each waypoint does not have an along-track drift, having no first-order J2-perturbation, and having the maximal RN-plane separ...
[29]

Reasoning Model 9.1. Dataset generation First, four quantitative evaluation metrics cor- responding to the high-level intent components {fuel,time,observation,safety margin} are introduced as follows: •Fuel:R c •Time:N= PK k=1 dk •Observation quality:R o •Safety margin:min j ρ(xj)−r KOZ Higher values of the observation metric Ro and the safety margin are ...
[30]

Waypoint generation Fig

Supplementary Results 10.1. Waypoint generation Fig. 3 presents the histogram of rewards obtained from the 500 test cases, corresponding to the summary statistics re- ported in Table 1. The superior reward distribution achieved by the imitation learning–based methods (both weighted and unweighted) relative to the heuristic baseline is clearly evident. Fig...
[31]

best_candidate_id

LLM Prompts 11.1. Annotation of reasoning traces from tabular- ized metrics Generation of behavior sequence with reasoning (GPT-4o-mini) System: You're an expert spacecraft operator for rendezvous missions. You select one trajectory candidate from metric tables. Follow the priority order (lexicographic), not weighted sum. Output only valid JSON. For one_l...