pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.21740 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-23 · 📡 eess.SY · cs.RO· cs.SY

A Case Study in Recovery of Drones using Discrete-Event Systems

Liam P. Burns , Dayse M. Cavalcanti , Felipe G. Cabral , Max H. de Queiroz , Melissa Greeff , Publio M. M. Lima , Karen Rudie This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-09 20:58 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 📡 eess.SY cs.ROcs.SY
keywords drone recoverydiscrete-event systemssupervisory controlswarm roboticsUAVhybrid controlfault toleranceattack recovery
0
0 comments X

The pith

A hybrid architecture with a discrete-event supervisor lets lost drones recover from faults or attacks and safely re-enter the controlled region.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper investigates applying supervisory control from discrete-event systems to drone swarms for recovery after loss. It combines a high-level supervisor that dictates sequences of events with a low-level continuous flight controller. This hybrid setup is shown to guide drones back into the operational area across different simulated conditions. Tests use ten UAVs in the py-bullet-drones environment under four scenarios with varying state estimates. A second supervisor is added to handle regrouping once a drone has returned.

Core claim

The authors demonstrate that a discrete-event systems supervisor can be combined with continuous control to specify and enforce correct recovery behaviors for drones in a swarm, enabling them to recover from fault or attack events and safely return to the controlled region, as validated in simulations of ten UAVs.

What carries the argument

The hybrid architecture consisting of a high-level discrete event systems supervisor that coordinates recovery sequences and a low-level continuous controller that executes the flight maneuvers.

If this is right

  • Lost drones can be recovered without manual intervention in swarm operations.
  • The method handles varying initial state estimates in recovery scenarios.
  • A secondary supervisor can manage regrouping after re-entry.
  • The approach provides correct-by-construction behavior for safety-critical recovery.
  • Applicable to different fault and attack events in UAV swarms.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • This could extend to real-world drone hardware tests to validate the simulation results.
  • Integration with other swarm behaviors like formation keeping might be possible using similar supervisory control.
  • The framework might apply to other robotic systems facing uncertainty, such as underwater vehicles.
  • Potential for scaling to larger swarms by modular supervisor design.

Load-bearing premise

The discrete-event model accurately represents the drone behaviors, sensor information, and uncertainties in real recovery conditions without major discrepancies from the continuous physical world.

What would settle it

A simulation run or real experiment where a drone fails to recover safely despite following the supervisor's commands due to unmodeled continuous dynamics or sensor noise.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.21740 by Dayse M. Cavalcanti, Felipe G. Cabral, Karen Rudie, Liam P. Burns, Max H. de Queiroz, Melissa Greeff, Publio M. M. Lima.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Mission area grid map. Zones OR, BZ, and NFZ are [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Model of the inner navigation layer in zone [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Automaton GM, modeling the navigation layer. Each state corresponds to a zone (1 − 25, ∆), with transitions in￾dicating possible movements (mi , i ∈ {n, e, s, w}) between adjacent zones after the search (si) and observation of a border (oi) or a loss (l). The OR (13) is modeled as a single state, and an intermediate state (B13) is added between 13 and its neighboring zones to represent detection of re-entr… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (Part of the) Recovery Bipartite Transition System [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Recovery trajectories under different initial state [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Time-indexed snapshots of the secondary recovery [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Discrete-event systems and supervisory control theory provide a rigorous framework for specifying correct-by-construction behavior. However, their practical application to swarm robotics remains largely underexplored. In this paper, we investigate a topological recovery method based on discrete-event-systems within a swarm robotics context. We propose a hybrid architecture that combines a high-level discrete event systems supervisor with a low-level continuous controller, allowing lost drones to safely recover from fault or attack events and re-enter a controlled region. The method is demonstrated using ten simulated UAVs in the py-bullet-drones framework. We show recovery performance across four distinct scenarios, each with varying initial state estimates. Additionally, we introduce a secondary recovery supervisor that manages the regrouping process for a drone after it has re-entered the operational region.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a hybrid architecture that integrates a high-level discrete-event systems (DES) supervisor, based on supervisory control theory, with a low-level continuous controller to enable safe recovery of lost drones in a swarm following fault or attack events, allowing them to re-enter a controlled region. It demonstrates the method via simulations of ten UAVs in the py-bullet-drones framework across four scenarios with varying initial state estimates and introduces a secondary DES supervisor to manage post-recovery regrouping.

Significance. If the DES abstraction remains valid under realistic continuous dynamics, this work would provide a correct-by-construction approach to fault and attack recovery in drone swarms, extending established supervisory control theory to a practical robotics setting. The use of a standard DES framework, the hybrid design, the secondary regrouping supervisor, and the physics-based simulation environment are strengths that support reproducibility and initial feasibility evidence.

major comments (2)
  1. [Simulation results] Simulation results section: The four scenarios demonstrate recovery with varying initial state estimates under nominal conditions, but no experiments introduce sensor noise, actuator delays, unmodeled disturbances, or attack-induced trajectory deviations that would test whether the low-level continuous controller produces events consistent with the DES model assumptions. This leaves the central claim that the hybrid architecture enables safe recovery dependent on an unverified abstraction fidelity.
  2. [Hybrid architecture] Hybrid architecture description (likely §3-4): The supervisor is claimed to ensure safe re-entry and recovery, yet the interface between discrete events and continuous trajectories is not accompanied by a formal guarantee or sensitivity analysis showing that the low-level controller cannot violate region boundaries or produce undetected collisions before event detection occurs.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that recovery performance is shown but provides no quantitative metrics (e.g., success rates, recovery times, or error statistics), which would better support the claims even in a case-study format.
  2. [Modeling section] Notation for the DES plant, supervisor, and event sets could be clarified with an explicit table or diagram early in the modeling section to aid readers unfamiliar with the specific drone application.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback on our manuscript. We address each major comment below and indicate the revisions we intend to make.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Simulation results section: The four scenarios demonstrate recovery with varying initial state estimates under nominal conditions, but no experiments introduce sensor noise, actuator delays, unmodeled disturbances, or attack-induced trajectory deviations that would test whether the low-level continuous controller produces events consistent with the DES model assumptions. This leaves the central claim that the hybrid architecture enables safe recovery dependent on an unverified abstraction fidelity.

    Authors: We agree that additional tests under perturbed conditions would strengthen validation of the abstraction. The current four scenarios focus on nominal dynamics with varying initial state estimates to illustrate the core recovery mechanism. In the revised manuscript we will add simulation results that incorporate sensor noise, actuator delays, and unmodeled disturbances, checking consistency of generated events with the DES model. This provides empirical support while preserving the case-study scope. revision: partial

  2. Referee: Hybrid architecture description (likely §3-4): The supervisor is claimed to ensure safe re-entry and recovery, yet the interface between discrete events and continuous trajectories is not accompanied by a formal guarantee or sensitivity analysis showing that the low-level controller cannot violate region boundaries or produce undetected collisions before event detection occurs.

    Authors: The hybrid architecture assumes the low-level controller in the py-bullet-drones simulator produces events at region crossings as modeled in the DES plant. We will revise the architecture section to state these interface assumptions explicitly and discuss conditions under which they may fail. The DES supervisor then guarantees the safety properties once events are detected. A full formal sensitivity analysis or hybrid-system verification lies outside the scope of this simulation-based case study. revision: partial

standing simulated objections not resolved
  • A complete formal guarantee or sensitivity analysis proving the low-level controller never violates DES assumptions under arbitrary noise, delays, and disturbances.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: standard DES supervisory control applied to drone recovery case study

full rationale

The paper applies established discrete-event systems supervisory control theory to define a hybrid architecture for drone recovery, combining a high-level supervisor with low-level continuous control. Simulations in py-bullet-drones demonstrate performance across scenarios without any fitted parameters renamed as predictions, self-definitional loops, or load-bearing self-citations that reduce the central claim to its own inputs. The derivation relies on external theory and simulation validation rather than constructing results equivalent to the modeling assumptions by definition.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard assumptions from supervisory control theory and the adequacy of the discrete-event abstraction for drone behavior; no free parameters or new entities are introduced in the provided abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption A discrete-event model can accurately represent the high-level recovery and re-entry behaviors of drones under fault or attack conditions.
    This underpins the correctness of the high-level supervisor in the hybrid architecture.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5463 in / 1127 out tokens · 28615 ms · 2026-05-09T20:58:59.992031+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

16 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A survey on autonomous and intelligent swarms of uncrewed aerial vehicles (uavs),

    Z. Du, C. Luo, G. Min, J. Wu, C. Luo, J. Pu, and S. Li, “A survey on autonomous and intelligent swarms of uncrewed aerial vehicles (uavs),”IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 26, no. 10, pp. 14 477–14 500, 2025

    work page 2025

  2. [2]

    Swarm robots circle formation via a virtual viscoelastic control model,

    B. Khaldi and C. Foudil, “Swarm robots circle formation via a virtual viscoelastic control model,” inInternational Conference on Mathematics and Information Technology, Nov. 2016

    work page 2016

  3. [3]

    Jones, M

    S. Jones, M. Studley, S. Hauert, and A. Winfield,Evolving Behaviour Trees for Swarm Robotics. Springer, 2018, pp. 487–501

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    Alliance: An architecture for fault tolerant multirobot cooperation,

    L. E. Parker, “Alliance: An architecture for fault tolerant multirobot cooperation,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 220–240, 1998

    work page 1998

  5. [5]

    Fault-tolerant cooperative control of multiagent systems: A survey of trends and methodologies,

    H. Yang, Q.-L. Han, X. Ge, L. Ding, Y . Xu, B. Jiang, and D. Zhou, “Fault-tolerant cooperative control of multiagent systems: A survey of trends and methodologies,”IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informat- ics, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 4–17, 2020

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    Resilient UA V swarm commu- nications with graph convolutional neural network,

    Z. Mou, F. Gao, J. Liu, and Q. Wu, “Resilient UA V swarm commu- nications with graph convolutional neural network,”IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 393–411, 2022

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Fast k-connectivity restoration in multi-robot systems for robust com- munication maintenance: Algorithmic and learning-based solutions,

    G. Shi, I. Md Ishat-E-Rabban, G. Bonner, and P. Tokekar, “Fast k-connectivity restoration in multi-robot systems for robust com- munication maintenance: Algorithmic and learning-based solutions,” Autonomous Robots, vol. 49, no. 4, pp. 1–18, 2025

    work page 2025

  8. [8]

    Energy-efficient post-failure reconfiguration of swarms of unmanned aerial vehicles,

    A. Tahir, H. Haghbayan, J. M. Böling, and J. Plosila, “Energy-efficient post-failure reconfiguration of swarms of unmanned aerial vehicles,” IEEE Access, vol. 11, pp. 24 768–24 783, 2023

    work page 2023

  9. [9]

    Supervisory control theory applied to swarm robotics,

    Y . K. Lopes, S. M. Trenkwalder, A. B. Leal, T. J. Dodd, and R. Groß, “Supervisory control theory applied to swarm robotics,” Swarm Intelligence, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 65–97, 2016

    work page 2016

  10. [10]

    Multi-robots coordination system for urban search and rescue as- sistance based on supervisory control theory,

    M. E. Simon, F. L. Baldissera, M. H. de Queiroz, and F. G. Cabral, “Multi-robots coordination system for urban search and rescue as- sistance based on supervisory control theory,”Journal of Control, Automation and Electrical Systems, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 484–495, 2023

    work page 2023

  11. [11]

    Modeling and control of heterogeneous agricul- tural field robots based on Ramadge–Wonham theory,

    C. Ju and H. I. Son, “Modeling and control of heterogeneous agricul- tural field robots based on Ramadge–Wonham theory,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 48–55, 2020

    work page 2020

  12. [12]

    Secure recovery procedure for manufacturing systems using synchronizing automata and supervisory control theory,

    L. V . R. Alves and P. N. Pena, “Secure recovery procedure for manufacturing systems using synchronizing automata and supervisory control theory,”IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engi- neering, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 486–496, 2022

    work page 2022

  13. [13]

    Robust recovery and control of cyber- physical discrete event systems under actuator attacks,

    S. Oliveira, M. T. Anbarani, G. Beal, I. Kovalenko, M. Teixeira, A. B. Leal, and R. Meira-Góes, “Robust recovery and control of cyber- physical discrete event systems under actuator attacks,” inIEEE 64th Conference on Decision and Control, Dec 2025, pp. 1220–1226

    work page 2025

  14. [14]

    Recovery of discrete event systems after active cyberattacks,

    D. M. Cavalcanti, P. M. M. Lima, M. H. de Queiroz, and F. G. Cabral, “Recovery of discrete event systems after active cyberattacks,”IEEE Control Systems Letters, vol. 9, pp. 1171–1176, 2025

    work page 2025

  15. [15]

    CasADi – A software framework for nonlinear optimization and optimal control,

    J. A. E. Andersson, J. Gillis, G. Horn, J. B. Rawlings, and M. Diehl, “CasADi – A software framework for nonlinear optimization and optimal control,”Mathematical Programming Computation, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 1–36, 2019

    work page 2019

  16. [16]

    Learning to fly—a gym environment with pybullet physics for rein- forcement learning of multi-agent quadcopter control,

    J. Panerati, H. Zheng, S. Zhou, J. Xu, A. Prorok, and A. P. Schoellig, “Learning to fly—a gym environment with pybullet physics for rein- forcement learning of multi-agent quadcopter control,” inIEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, 2021, pp. 7512–7519

    work page 2021