GUIDE: Guided Updates for In-context Decision Evolution in LLM-Driven Spacecraft Operations

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.

Large language model (LLM) agents for long-horizon interactive tasks typically follow a ReAct-style protocol, issuing one primitive action per LLM round. While this enables frequent replanning, it is inefficient for long-horizon tasks where many rounds are spent on routine action sequences. A natural alternative is to let the agent emit variable-length action chunks. However, naively training such policies with standard reinforcement learning fails: the agent either collapses to single-action behavior or over-commits to excessively long sequences. Both failures share a common root cause: the inability to learn chunk boundaries. We propose SPACE, which addresses this challenge by distilling chunk-boundary supervision from trajectory-induced programmatic skills. We induce two-level programmatic skills from successful trajectories, where subskill boundaries serve as direct chunk-boundary supervision. This temporal structure is then distilled into a primitive-chunk policy via hybrid on-/off-policy optimization with chunk-aware credit assignment. Experiments on ALFWorld and ScienceWorld show that SPACE improves success rates by 7.0%-31.3% over the strongest baseline in each setting while reducing average LLM decision rounds by up to 78.9%.

Do LLM scientific agents rely only on their initial task context, or do they adapt their decisions in response to experimental feedback? We study this question in neural operator adaptation, where a large language model (LLM) selects fine-tuning configurations under a limited trial budget. Across transfers within and between partial differential equation (PDE) families, the LLM achieves lower held-out test nRMSE than random search and Bayesian optimisation in nearly every matched comparison. Endpoint performance alone cannot distinguish what happens, so we verify each attribution with controlled interventions. Before observing any validation score, the LLM's first configuration already ranks near the top of the corresponding random-search pool, indicating a useful initial bias. A complementary cold-start intervention shows that the selected base learning rate shifts with the PDE description. Once feedback becomes available, reassigning validation scores among evaluated configurations changes the next proposal in every case tested, whereas a value-preserving rewrite produces no comparable aggregate effect. These interventions establish that the LLM's decision-level actions respond to the given task and observed outcomes, showing that it combines a task-dependent prior with sensitivity to experimental feedback.