Failsafe Mechanism Design for Autonomous Aerial Refueling using State Tree Structures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Autonomous Aerial Refueling (AAR) is vulnerable to various failures and involves cooperation among autonomous receivers, tankers and remote pilots. Dangerous flight maneuvers may be executed when unexpected failures or command conflicts happen. To solve this problem, a failsafe mechanism based on State Tree Structures (STS) is proposed. The failsafe mechanism is a control logic that guides what subsequent actions the autonomous receiver should take, by observing real-time information of internal low-level subsystems such as guidance and drogue&probe and external instructions from tankers and pilots. To generate such a controller using STS, the AAR procedure is decomposed into several modes, and safety issues related with seven low-level subsystems are summarized. Then common functional demands and safety requirements are textually described. On this basis, the AAR plants and specifications are modeled by STS, and a supervisor is synthesized to control the AAR model. To prove its feasibility and correctness, a simulation environment incorporating such a logic supervisor is built and tested. The design procedures presented in this paper can be used in decision-making strategies for similar flight tasks. Supporting materials can be downloaded in Github, [ https://github.com/KevinDong0810/Failsafe-Design-for-AAR-using-STS ] including related software, input documents and output files.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".