A Framework for Assessing Aircraft Detect and Avoid Systems Using Monte Carlo Simulations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The rapidly expanding use of remotely piloted aircraft systems (RPAS) in airspace historically dominated by traditional aviation has increased the potential for collisions.This issue, combined with the evolving Beyond Visual Line of Sight (BVLOS) regulations, highlights the critical importance of robust Detect and Avoid (DAA) systems.The Monte Carlo simulation framework presented evaluates different cooperative and non-cooperative DAA systems onboard RPAS ownships in conflict with an intruding aircraft.This framework incorporates the generation of traditional aircraft trajectories using historical flight data and the Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPA) trajectories given flight parameters in a multitude of different flight scenarios (hover, straight line, survey pattern, etc.); the addition of sensor noise to the flight tracks to emulate the expected data out of the sensors; and finally, the prediction and resolution of conflicts.Results highlight the difference in risk ratio (Probability of Near Mid-Air Collision (NMAC) with mitigation versus without mitigation) between cooperative and non-cooperative sensors.Moreover, they show the need for appropriate selection of DAA sensor parameters, e.g., field of view (FOV), range, and acceptable uncertainties, to satisfy safety requirements.Firstly, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my supervisors, Dr. Jeremy Laliberte and Dr. Iryna Borshchova, for their support, guidance throughout my research and master's program.Their ability to guide and lead me through the research process but also help fill in the gaps of my knowledge was an invaluable help in the completion of my academic journey.Without their time and patience shown towards
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".