Safe UAV Continuous-Control Architecture Design
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) are often classified as safety-critical systems due to the severe implications a failure might have. Ensuring safety guarantees is therefore paramount in UAV design. This paper introduces a solution to provide safety guarantees during the design of the continuous-control architecture, a critical component. Formal verification (FV) techniques are employed to detect software errors and verify the architecture's ability to meet real-time system requirements. The first verification round utilizes the ESBMC model checker, focusing on individual elements of the architecture, particularly the continuous-control algorithm. The second verification process employs the UPPAAL model checker to conduct a schedulability analysis of the proposed architecture. Finally, a runtime monitoring analysis is performed using the newly developed RMLib tool. This approach was successfully applied in the design process of a UAV, identifying and correcting various design and implementation issues, as detailed in the paper.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 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 it