New Reliability Studies of Data-Driven Aircraft Trajectory Prediction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two main factors, including regression accuracy and adversarial attack robustness, of six trajectory prediction models are measured in this paper using the traffic flow management system (TFMS) public dataset of fixed-wing aircraft trajectories in a specific route provided by the Federal Aviation Administration. Six data-driven regressors with their desired architectures, from basic conventional to advanced deep learning, are explored in terms of the accuracy and reliability of their predicted trajectories. The main contribution of the paper is that the existence of adversarial samples was characterized for an aircraft trajectory problem, which is recast as a regression task in this paper. In other words, although data-driven algorithms are currently the best regressors, it is shown that they can be attacked by adversarial samples. Adversarial samples are similar to training samples; however, they can cause finely trained regressors to make incorrect predictions, which poses a security concern for learning-based trajectory prediction algorithms. It is shown that although deep-learning-based algorithms (e.g., long short-term memory (LSTM)) have higher regression accuracy with respect to conventional classifiers (e.g., support vector regression (SVR)), they are more sensitive to crafted states, which can be carefully manipulated even to redirect their predicted states towards incorrect states. This fact poses a real security issue for aircraft as adversarial attacks can result in intentional and purposely designed collisions of built-in systems that can include any type of learning-based trajectory predictor.
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 | 0.008 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".