Fault Diagnosis and Prognosis of Satellites and Unmanned Aerial Vehicles: A Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper comprehensively analyzes advanced Fault Diagnosis and Prognosis (FDP) techniques employed in aerial and space agents such as satellites, spacecraft, and Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs). The critical engineering functions of fault diagnostics and prognosis, particularly the emerging field of fault prognosis, emphasize the necessity for further advancement. Integrating these methodologies enriches the system’s capacity to diagnose faults in their early stages. Additionally, it enables the prediction of fault propagation and facilitates proactive maintenance to mitigate the risk of severe failure. This paper aims to introduce diverse FDP methods, followed by a discussion on their application and evolution within single and multisatellite/UAV systems. Throughout this review, eighty-five relevant works are analyzed and discussed and their evaluation metrics are expanded upon as well. Within the works analyzed in this review, it was found that data-driven methods constitute 54% and 7% of the methodologies utilized in single- and multiagent FDP, respectively, which underscores the rise of these methods in the field of single-agent FDP and their unexplored potential in multiagent condition monitoring. Finally, this review is brought to a close with a suggested classification scheme of the utilized methodologies in the field, a quantitative analysis of their contributions to the field, and remarks and mentions of the potential gaps in the area.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".