跳到正文
arXiv cs.AI· Nasim Fallahiarezoodar, Zheng H. Zhu·· 2 小时前AI 评分29

PPO 与 SAC 对比研究:双臂空间机器人协同运动控制

PPO vs. SAC: A Comparative Study for Cooperative Motion Control of Dual-Arm Space Robots

AI 导读

一篇发表于 2026 AAS/AIAA 天体动力学会议的论文针对双臂空间机械臂的目标到达任务,构建了带臂间碰撞规避约束的协同强化学习框架,并对比 PPO 与 SAC 两种算法。

正文 · 原文

View PDF HTML (experimental)

Abstract:The growing population of orbital debris has intensified interest in active debris removal and on-orbit servicing, for which dual-arm space manipulators offer improved grasping stability and load distribution relative to single-arm systems. However, coordinating two manipulators under inter-arm collision avoidance, orientation alignment, and sensing uncertainty remains challenging. This paper develops a coordinated reinforcement learning framework for cooperative motion planning of a dual-arm space manipulator in a target-reaching task with inter-arm collision-avoidance constraints. A centralized state representation combines joint-space, end-effector, and target-relative information, while a multi-objective reward function promotes target-reaching accuracy, orientation alignment, motion smoothness, synchronized task completion, and collision avoidance. Within this framework, Proximal Policy Optimization (PPO) and Soft Actor-Critic (SAC) are compared as representative on-policy and off-policy algorithms, and the learned policies are further evaluated for generalization to previously unseen target configurations. Across five random seeds, SAC substantially outperforms PPO within the considered fixed-base simulation scenarios: it reaches an 80% success threshold in every seed (median 1.6M environment steps) whereas PPO does not reach it within a 4M-step budget, and it attains a higher mean success rate (78.6% versus 7.4%) with lower position and orientation errors and tighter bimanual synchronization. Both algorithms degrade on unseen boundary targets, but SAC retains most of its performance while PPO's collapses. The results also expose a failure mode of PPO: under the two-phase shaped reward, it tends to converge to a reward-loitering local optimum rather than committing to the precision task. This behavior highlights the sensitivity of on-policy learning to reward shaping.
Comments: Presented at the 2026 AAS/AIAA Astrodynamics Specialist Conference, Whistler, British Columbia, Canada, July 26-30, 2026. Paper AAS 26-740
Subjects: Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
Cite as: arXiv:2610.32034 [cs.AI]
  (or arXiv:2610.32034v1 [cs.AI] for this version)
  https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.32034

arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

Submission history

From: Nasim Fallahiarezoodar [view email]
[v1] Fri, 23 Oct 2026 01:22:07 UTC (521 KB)

来源:arXiv cs.AI · arxiv.org