REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 56 references
Verification and Validation of a Vision-Based Landing System for Autonomous VTOL Air Taxis
T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash
Pith's one-line read A vision-based VTOL landing system is verified safe in five simulated urban scenarios.
desk verdict An honest, well-scoped integration case study whose headline safety guarantee for the obstacle scenarios does not survive its own admitted change to the initial-state distribution. read the letter →
The pith
A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.
The reading
What carries the argument
The load-bearing object is the reachable set: the union of all positions the MiniHawk could occupy at a given time starting from a set of initial conditions. Verse computes an over-approximation of this set by simulating sampled trajectories in a black-box simulator and inflating them, so that if the over-approximation avoids the obstacle region and lies inside the landing pad, the safety guarantee holds for every trajectory the simulator can produce from those initial conditions. The simulator couples CARLA for photorealistic rendering and sensor images with Gazebo for the MiniHawk's vehicle dynamics.
What would settle it
Using the paper's original spawn logic for scenario 3 or 5, sample initial conditions uniformly from the stated ranges and recompute the Verse reachtube; if any trajectory or the reachable set intersects the intruder's bounding box, the collision-avoidance claim is refuted.
Extended reading notes
Core claim
The paper establishes, on its own terms, that for five simulated emergency-landing scenarios on a rooftop helipad, the MiniHawk's vision-based landing system satisfies both required safety properties: at the end of the maneuver the reachable set of vehicle positions lies inside the landing pad, and along the way the reachable set never touches an obstacle. The evidence is an over-approximated reachable tube computed by the hybrid-system verification tool Verse from simulated trajectories, plus scenario testing with a photorealistic urban environment. The paper states directly that, within the range of conditions and constraints described across the evaluation scenarios, the autonomous landing system is safe and reliable.
Load-bearing premise
The obstacle-avoidance safety result depends on the assumption that the curated subset of spawn trajectories used in scenarios 3 and 5 represents all behaviors the landing system could exhibit from the stated initial conditions.
Editorial extensions
If this is right
- A safety claim for a vision-based landing stack can be obtained entirely in simulation, before any hardware flight test.
- The same reachability pipeline transfers to new landing scenarios by changing the initial-condition set, obstacle layout, and perception setup.
- Perception uncertainty in scenarios 4 and 5 does not push the reachable set outside the landing pad, so the system tolerates bounded detection error.
- The formal result covers static intruder aircraft, not moving ones; dynamic-intruder scenarios are left to future work.
Reading between the lines
- Pith inference: the paper's own limitation note implies that the obstacle-avoidance guarantee depends on the curated spawn sampling for scenarios 3 and 5; re-running with the original spawn logic could make the reachable set falsely include the obstacle region, so the safety claim is best read as conditional on representative trajectory sampling.
- Pith inference: a natural next experiment is to partition the initial-condition set and compute the union of reachable tubes per partition, a remedy the paper names but does not implement; this would test whether the curated sampling hides a real collision risk.
- Pith inference: because the reachability analysis uses only 10 trajectories per scenario, the probabilistic accuracy of the over-approximation depends on that sample size; increasing trial counts would tighten the guarantee.
Editorial analysis
A structured set of objections, weighed in public.
Referee Report
Summary. This paper presents a Verification and Validation (V&V) framework for a vision-based autonomous landing system for a MiniHawk VTOL aircraft, combining the Verse reachability tool with a CARLA/Gazebo photorealistic simulation environment. Five scenarios are studied, varying initial-condition uncertainty, landing-point uncertainty, a static intruder obstacle, and the use of YOLOv8-based perception. The paper claims that Verse computes over-approximate reachable sets and that the system satisfies safe landing and collision-avoidance properties in all scenarios. It also outlines a validation methodology intended to address the sim-to-real gap, although no independent validation experiments are reported.
Significance. If the central claims were established, the paper would be a useful demonstration of integrating formal reachability analysis with high-fidelity simulation for VTOL landing, and it is candid about several practical limitations. The authors deserve credit for integrating Verse with CARLA/Gazebo, for defining five test scenarios, and for explicitly disclosing the spawn-logic modification and the small number of trajectories. However, the headline safety claim is not supported by the presented evidence: for the obstacle scenarios the reachable set is computed over a curated subset rather than the declared initial set, and the formal verification guarantee is not quantified. Consequently, the paper's main contribution is not currently established.
major comments (3)
- [§V.D and §V.B] The safety claim for Scenarios 3 and 5 is unsupported. Section V.B states that Scenario 3 samples initial positions uniformly from x∈[−5.5,−3.0], y∈[−1.5,1.5], z∈[73.0,77.0], but Section V.D admits that the spawn logic was modified so that the MiniHawk favors a subset of all possible trajectories around the obstacle and that, with the original logic, the reachable set would erroneously include the obstacle region. Therefore the reachable tube used to check conditions (1)–(2) is not an over-approximation of the stated initial-condition set. The verification result can at best be read as covering a curated subset, not the scenario as defined, so the sentence in Section V.D that the system 'is safe and reliable' overreaches the evidence.
- [§V.C and §IV.A] The probabilistic over-approximation guarantee is not established. The reachable sets are computed from only 10 trajectories per scenario, and the authors state that 'rarely' the MiniHawk simulation can destabilize and that such instances were 'manually identified and removed.' DryVR-style simulation-based reachability yields probably approximately correct over-approximations only under sampling assumptions; discarding trajectories after observing their outcomes introduces selection bias and voids or at least leaves unquantified the formal guarantee. The paper does not report sensitivity constants, confidence levels, or the number of discarded trajectories. Thus even for Scenarios 1, 2, and 4 the formal verification claim is not substantiated at the level the paper asserts.
- [§IV.B and §V] The validation component is not carried out independently. Section IV.B describes a methodology for validating reachability results through scenario-based testing, and the abstract says the results are validated by 'extensive scenario-based testing,' but no separate validation experiments are reported; the scenario results in Section V are the same simulations used to compute the reachable tubes. This makes the validation circular and does not provide independent evidence about the sim-to-real gap, which the paper itself acknowledges requires hardware-in-the-loop testing and outdoor experiments.
minor comments (4)
- [§V.C] The word 'Additonally' should be 'Additionally'.
- [§V.D] The subsection heading 'Over-approximation in V&V Framework' is misleading because the described spawn-logic modification produces an under-approximation of the declared initial set, not an over-approximation.
- [§V.B] The phrase 'ensuring it flies behind the intruding vehicle' indicates that Scenario 3 is a single-behavior case study; this should be stated as a limitation in the abstract and conclusion if the safety claim is retained.
- [Figures 8–12] The figures are referenced in the text but no captions or panel legends are visible in the provided manuscript, so the reader cannot tell which color corresponds to the reachable set, the obstacle, or the landing pad.
Circularity Check
Obstacle-scenario collision avoidance is built into the curated spawn logic, so the safety conclusion for Scenarios 3 and 5 reduces to an input selection rather than a derived result.
-
fitted input called prediction
[Section V.D (Discussion), with Scenario 3 and 5 initial-condition definitions in Section V.B.]
"had the Minihawk spawn logic been the same as other scenarios, the Minihawk would diverge all around the obstacle. While these trajectories are safe, the resultant reachability analysis would erroneously include the region occupied by the obstacle. ... Therefore, to present the reachability analysis for scenarios with obstacles, by modifying the spawn logic, the Minihawk is made to favor a subset of all possible trajectories around the obstacle."
The safety property (2) for Scenarios 3 and 5 is checked against a reachtube computed from sampled trajectories. Those samples were selected by altered spawn logic whose explicit purpose is to route the MiniHawk around the obstacle and to prevent the overapproximate reachable set from covering the obstacle. The verified statement that the reachable set avoids the intruder is therefore an artifact of the input sampling: trajectories that would make the reachtube include the obstacle were deliberately not sampled. The paper even states that with the original spawn logic the reachable set would erroneously include the region occupied by the obstacle.
full rationale
The paper is not generally circular: Verse/DryVR is an external reachability tool with published guarantees, the Gazebo/CARLA simulator is a separate dynamical input, and no parameter is fitted to reproduce the landing-pad outcome. The scenario-based testing is a consistency check on the same simulation pipeline rather than an independent validation, but that alone is a methodological limitation rather than a circular derivation. The genuine circularity is confined to the obstacle-avoidance results for Scenarios 3 and 5. The paper explicitly narrows the initial-position range to force MiniHawk behind the intruder and then further modifies the spawn logic so that sampled trajectories favor a subset around the obstacle. The reachtube is computed from those trajectories, so the observation that it avoids the intruder is built into the input sample set. The authors' own admission that, with the original spawn logic, the reachable set would erroneously include the region occupied by the obstacle confirms that safety property (2) was not established for the scenario as originally specified. Thus the Section V.D statement that the goals of successful landing and collision avoidance are met overstates coverage: for two of the five scenarios, collision avoidance holds only for the curated subset of trajectories. This is a partial but real circularity in a central claim, justifying a score of 6.
Assumptions & free parameters
free parameters (5)
- Scenario 1/2/4 initial position bounds =
x,y in [-5,5], z in [70,80] m
- Scenario 2/3/5 landing point sigma =
sigma = (1.5,1.5,0) m
- Scenario 3/5 restricted initial ranges =
x in [-5.5,-3.0], y in [-1.5,1.5], z in [73.0,77.0] m
- Number of trajectories per scenario =
10
- Time step and horizon =
0.25 s, 100 s
assumptions (5)
- domain assumption Verse/DryVR computes a sound over-approximation of the reachable set from sampled trajectories
- domain assumption The CARLA/Gazebo simulation accurately represents MiniHawk dynamics and the environment
- ad hoc to paper Manually removed destabilized simulations are numerical artifacts that do not reflect real vehicle behavior
- domain assumption The YOLOv8 detection bounding box center corresponds to the helipad center with sufficient accuracy
- domain assumption Obstacle information is assumed to be available and correct
Cite this review
Pith. "Pith review of Verification and Validation of a Vision-Based Landing System for Autonomous VTOL Air Taxis." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7NFFMFSO
@misc{pith2026241208102,
author = {Pith},
title = {Pith review of: Verification and Validation of a Vision-Based Landing System for Autonomous VTOL Air Taxis},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7NFFMFSO}},
note = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.08102}
}
read the original abstract
Autonomous air taxis are poised to revolutionize urban mass transportation, however, ensuring their safety and reliability remains an open challenge. Validating autonomy solutions on air taxis in the real world presents complexities, risks, and costs that further convolute this challenge. Verification and Validation (V&V) frameworks play a crucial role in the design and development of highly reliable systems by formally verifying safety properties and validating algorithm behavior across diverse operational scenarios. Advancements in high-fidelity simulators have significantly enhanced their capability to emulate real-world conditions, encouraging their use for validating autonomous air taxi solutions, especially during early development stages. This evolution underscores the growing importance of simulation environments, not only as complementary tools to real-world testing but as essential platforms for evaluating algorithms in a controlled, reproducible, and scalable manner. This work presents a V&V framework for a vision-based landing system for air taxis with vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) capabilities. Specifically, we use Verse, a tool for formal verification, to model and verify the safety of the system by obtaining and analyzing the reachable sets. To conduct this analysis, we utilize a photorealistic simulation environment. The simulation environment, built on Unreal Engine, provides realistic terrain, weather, and sensor characteristics to emulate real-world conditions with high fidelity. To validate the safety analysis results, we conduct extensive scenario-based testing to assess the reachability set and robustness of the landing algorithm in various conditions. This approach showcases the representativeness of high-fidelity simulators, offering an effective means to analyze and refine algorithms before real-world deployment.
Reference graph
Works this paper leans on
-
[1]
Autonomous Electric VTOL Transport Aircraft,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, “Autonomous Electric VTOL Transport Aircraft,”https://roadmaps.mit.edu/ index.php/Autonomous_ElectricVTOL_Transport_Aircraft, n.d. Accessed: 2024-11-24
work page 2024
-
[2]
Autonomous navigation for eVTOL: Review and future perspectives,
Wei, H., Lou, B., Zhang, Z., Liang, B., Wang, F.-Y., and Lv, C., “Autonomous navigation for eVTOL: Review and future perspectives,”IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles, 2024
work page 2024
-
[3]
Evaluation of Novel eVTOL Aircraft Automation Concepts,
Feary, M. S., Kaneshige, J., Lombaerts, T., Shish, K., and Haworth, L., “Evaluation of Novel eVTOL Aircraft Automation Concepts,”AIAA Aviation Forum and Exposition, 2023
work page 2023
-
[4]
Public perception of advanced aviation technologies: A review and roadmap to acceptance,
Tepylo, N., Straubinger, A., and Laliberte, J., “Public perception of advanced aviation technologies: A review and roadmap to acceptance,”Progress in Aerospace Sciences, Vol. 138, 2023, p. 100899
work page 2023
-
[5]
Autonomous Navigation and Obstacle Avoidance for Small VTOL UAV in Unknown Environments,
Chen, C., Wang, Z., Gong, Z., Cai, P., Zhang, C., and Li, Y., “Autonomous Navigation and Obstacle Avoidance for Small VTOL UAV in Unknown Environments,”Symmetry, Vol. 14, No. 12, 2022, p. 2608
work page 2022
-
[6]
Review of designs and flight control techniques of hybrid and convertible VTOL UAVs,
Ducard, G. J., and Allenspach, M., “Review of designs and flight control techniques of hybrid and convertible VTOL UAVs,” Aerospace Science and Technology, Vol. 118, 2021, p. 107035
work page 2021
-
[7]
MPC flight control for a tilt-rotor VTOL aircraft,
Bauersfeld, L., Spannagl, L., Ducard, G. J., and Onder, C. H., “MPC flight control for a tilt-rotor VTOL aircraft,”IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, Vol. 57, No. 4, 2021, pp. 2395–2409
work page 2021
-
[8]
Verification and validation of simulation models,
Sargent, R. G., “Verification and validation of simulation models,”Proceedings of the 2010 Winter Simulation Conference, IEEE, 2010, pp. 166–183
work page 2010
Show all 56 references
-
[9]
Noise and the reality gap: The use of simulation in evolutionary robotics,
Jakobi, N., Husbands, P., and Harvey, I., “Noise and the reality gap: The use of simulation in evolutionary robotics,”Advances in Artificial Life: Third European Conference on Artificial Life Granada, Spain, June 4–6, 1995 Proceedings 3, Springer, 1995, pp. 704–720
1995
-
[10]
Characterization of modeling errors affecting performances of a robotics deep reinforcement learning controller in a sim-to-real transfer,
Salvato, E., Fenu, G., Medvet, E., and Pellegrino, F. A., “Characterization of modeling errors affecting performances of a robotics deep reinforcement learning controller in a sim-to-real transfer,”2021 44th International Convention on Information, Communication and Electronic...
2021
-
[11]
Unreal Engine 4,
Epic Games, “Unreal Engine 4,”https://www.unrealengine.com/, 2014
2014
-
[12]
CARLA: An open urban driving simulator,
Dosovitskiy, A., Ros, G., Codevilla, F., Lopez, A., and Koltun, V., “CARLA: An open urban driving simulator,”Conference on Robot Learning, PMLR, 2017, pp. 1–16
2017
-
[13]
Synergistic Perception and Control Simplex for Verifiable Safe Vertical Landing,
Bansal, A., Zhao, Y., Zhu, J., Cheng, S., Gu, Y., Yoon, H. J., Kim, H., Hovakimyan, N., and Sha, L. R., “Synergistic Perception and Control Simplex for Verifiable Safe Vertical Landing,”AIAA SCITECH 2024 Forum, 2024, p. 1167
2024
-
[14]
Verse: A python library for reasoning about multi-agent hybrid system scenarios,
Li, Y., Zhu, H., Braught, K., Shen, K., and Mitra, S., “Verse: A python library for reasoning about multi-agent hybrid system scenarios,”International Conference on Computer Aided Verification, Springer, 2023, pp. 351–364
2023
-
[15]
Research on the Endurance Optimisation of Multirotor UAVs for High-Altitude Environments,
Qin, T., Zhang, G., Yang, L., and He, Y., “Research on the Endurance Optimisation of Multirotor UAVs for High-Altitude Environments,”Drones, Vol. 7, No. 7, 2023, p. 469
2023
-
[16]
J., Sóbester, A., and Scanlan, J
Keane, A. J., Sóbester, A., and Scanlan, J. P.,Small Unmanned Fixed-wing Aircraft Design: A Practical Approach, John Wiley & Sons, 2017. 13
2017
-
[17]
Bell V-280 Hover Flight Dynamics Model Validation and Update with Flight Test Data,
Lopez, M. J., Duffy, C. S., Tischler, M. B., and Ruckel, P., “Bell V-280 Hover Flight Dynamics Model Validation and Update with Flight Test Data,”Vertical Flight Society 77th Annual Forum, 2021
2021
-
[18]
Greased Lightning (GL-10) Performance Flight Research: Flight Data Report,
McSwain, R. G., Glaab, L. J., Theodore, C. R., Rhew, R. D., and North, D. D., “Greased Lightning (GL-10) Performance Flight Research: Flight Data Report,” Tech. rep., Langley Research Center, NASA, 2017
2017
-
[19]
The Minihawk-VTOL: Design, Modeling, and Experiments of a Rapidly-prototyped Tiltrotor UAV,
Carlson, S. J., and Papachristos, C., “The Minihawk-VTOL: Design, Modeling, and Experiments of a Rapidly-prototyped Tiltrotor UAV,”2021 International Conference on Unmanned Aircraft Systems (ICUAS), IEEE, 2021, pp. 777–786
2021
-
[20]
MiniHawk-VTOL,
Carlson, S., “MiniHawk-VTOL,”https://github.com/StephenCarlson/MiniHawk-VTOL, 2022
2022
-
[21]
Aerial Robotics,
RoboWork, “Aerial Robotics,”https://github.com/robowork/aerial_robotics, 2023. Accessed: 2024-11-18
2023
-
[22]
An Autonomous Vision-Based Target Tracking System for Rotorcraft Unmanned Aerial Vehicles,
Cheng, H., Lin, L., Zheng, Z., Guan, Y., and Liu, Z., “An Autonomous Vision-Based Target Tracking System for Rotorcraft Unmanned Aerial Vehicles,”2017 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), IEEE, 2017, pp. 1732–1738
2017
-
[23]
Vision-Based Target Detection and Tracking System for a Quadcopter,
Wu, S., Li, R., Shi, Y., and Liu, Q., “Vision-Based Target Detection and Tracking System for a Quadcopter,”IEEE Access, Vol. 9, 2021, pp. 62043–62054
2021
-
[24]
A Ground-Based Multi-Sensor System for Autonomous Landing of a Fixed Wing UAV,
Kong, W., Zhang, D., and Zhang, J., “A Ground-Based Multi-Sensor System for Autonomous Landing of a Fixed Wing UAV,” 2015 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Biomimetics (ROBIO), IEEE, 2015, pp. 1303–1310
2015
-
[25]
Wind Sensing and Estimation Using Small Fixed-Wing Unmanned Aerial vehicles: A survey,
Tian, P., Chao, H., Rhudy, M., Gross, J., and Wu, H., “Wind Sensing and Estimation Using Small Fixed-Wing Unmanned Aerial vehicles: A survey,”Journal of Aerospace Information Systems, Vol. 18, No. 3, 2021, pp. 132–143
2021
-
[26]
Path Planning for UAV Tracking Target Based on Improved A-star Algorithm,
Cai, Y., Xi, Q., Xing, X., Gui, H., and Liu, Q., “Path Planning for UAV Tracking Target Based on Improved A-star Algorithm,” 2019 1st International Conference on Industrial Artificial Intelligence (IAI), IEEE, 2019, pp. 1–6
2019
-
[27]
UAV Path Planning Based on the Combination of A-star Algorithm and RRT-star Algorithm,
Zhou, Q., and Liu, G., “UAV Path Planning Based on the Combination of A-star Algorithm and RRT-star Algorithm,”2022 IEEE International Conference on Unmanned Systems (ICUS), IEEE, 2022, pp. 146–151
2022
-
[28]
ArduPilot: Open Source Autopilot,
ArduPilot Development Team, “ArduPilot: Open Source Autopilot,” , 2024. URLhttp://www.ardupilot.org/, accessed: 2024-11-29
2024
-
[29]
Verification Challenges for Autonomous Systems,
Redfield, S. A., and Seto, M. L., “Verification Challenges for Autonomous Systems,”Autonomy and Artificial Intelligence: A Threat or Savior?, 2017, pp. 103–127
2017
-
[30]
Hylaa: A Tool for Computing Simulation-Equivalent Reachability for Linear Systems,
Bak, S., and Duggirala, P. S., “Hylaa: A Tool for Computing Simulation-Equivalent Reachability for Linear Systems,” Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Hybrid Systems: Computation and Control, ACM, 2017, pp. 173–178
2017
-
[31]
DryVR:Data-DrivenVerificationandCompositionalReasoningforAutomotive Systems,
Fan,C.,Qi,B.,Mitra,S.,andViswanathan,M.,“DryVR:Data-DrivenVerificationandCompositionalReasoningforAutomotive Systems,”International Conference on Computer Aided Verification, Springer, 2017, pp. 441–461
2017
-
[32]
An Introduction to CORA 2015,
Althoff, M., “An Introduction to CORA 2015,”Proc. of the Workshop on Applied Verification for Continuous and Hybrid Systems, 2015, pp. 120–151
2015
-
[33]
Refining Perception Contracts: Case Studies in Vision-Based Safe Auto-Landing,
Li, Y., Yang, B. C., Jia, Y., Zhuang, D., and Mitra, S., “Refining Perception Contracts: Case Studies in Vision-Based Safe Auto-Landing,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.08652, 2023
2023 arXiv
-
[34]
Verification of Design Specifications inL1 Adaptive Control,
Song, L., Cheng, S., Mitra, S., and Hovakimyan, N., “Verification of Design Specifications inL1 Adaptive Control,”AIAA SCITECH 2024 Forum, 2024, p. 1165
2024
-
[35]
On Determinism of Game Engines Used for Simulation-based Autonomous Vehicle Verification,
Chance, G., Ghobrial, A., McAreavey, K., Lemaignan, S., Pipe, T., and Eder, K., “On Determinism of Game Engines Used for Simulation-based Autonomous Vehicle Verification,”IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, Vol. 23, No. 11, 2022, pp. 20538–20552
2022
-
[36]
Generic-Urban-Air-Mobility-GUAM,
Acheson, M. J., Cook, J. W., Simmons, B. M., Derry, S., Bacon, B., and Britton, T., “Generic-Urban-Air-Mobility-GUAM,” , June 2024. URLhttps://github.com/nasa/Generic-Urban-Air-Mobility-GUAM
2024
-
[37]
Intersectionfocusedsituationcoverage-basedverificationandvalidationframeworkforautonomous vehicles implemented in Carla,
Tahir,Z.,andAlexander,R.,“Intersectionfocusedsituationcoverage-basedverificationandvalidationframeworkforautonomous vehicles implemented in Carla,”International Conference on Modelling and Simulation for Autonomous Systems, Springer, 2021, pp. 191–212. 14
2021
-
[38]
Verification and Validation Utilizing Carla Simulator for Autonomous Driving Development,
Won, M., and Kim, S., “Verification and Validation Utilizing Carla Simulator for Autonomous Driving Development,” International Conference on Simulation and Modeling Methodologies, Technologies and Applications, Springer, 2022, pp. 66–85
2022
-
[39]
Perception and Sensing for Autonomous Vehicles Under Adverse Weather Conditions: A Survey,
Zhang, Y., Carballo, A., Yang, H., and Takeda, K., “Perception and Sensing for Autonomous Vehicles Under Adverse Weather Conditions: A Survey,”ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, Vol. 196, 2023, pp. 146–177
2023
-
[40]
End-to-End Autonomous Driving: Challenges and Frontiers,
Chen, L., Wu, P., Chitta, K., Jaeger, B., Geiger, A., and Li, H., “End-to-End Autonomous Driving: Challenges and Frontiers,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 2024
2024
-
[41]
System-level Simulation-based Verification of Autonomous Driving Systems with the VIVAS Framework and CARLA Simulator,
Goyal, S., Griggio, A., and Tonetta, S., “System-level Simulation-based Verification of Autonomous Driving Systems with the VIVAS Framework and CARLA Simulator,”Science of Computer Programming, 2024, p. 103253
2024
-
[42]
DesignandUseParadigmsforGazebo,AnOpen-SourceMulti-RobotSimulator,
Koenig,N.,andHoward,A.,“DesignandUseParadigmsforGazebo,AnOpen-SourceMulti-RobotSimulator,” 2004IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) (IEEE Cat. No.04CH37566), Vol. 3, 2004, pp. 2149–2154 vol.3. https://doi.org/10.1109/IROS.2004.1389727
2004 arXiv
-
[43]
ROS Noetic,
Open Robotics, “ROS Noetic,” https://wiki.ros.org/noetic, 2020
2020
-
[44]
YOLO9000: Better, Faster, Stronger,
Redmon, J., and Farhadi, A., “YOLO9000: Better, Faster, Stronger,”Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2017, pp. 7263–7271
2017
-
[45]
Bayesian Data Augmentation and Training for Perception DNN in Autonomous Aerial Vehicles,
Rasul, A. E., Tasnim, H., Yoon, H.-J., Bansal, A., Wang, D., Hovakimyan, N., Sha, L., and Voulgaris, P., “Bayesian Data Augmentation and Training for Perception DNN in Autonomous Aerial Vehicles,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.07655, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.07655
2024 arXiv
-
[46]
HelipadCat: Categorised Helipad Image Dataset and Detection Method,
Bitoun, J., and Winkler, S., “HelipadCat: Categorised Helipad Image Dataset and Detection Method,”2020 IEEE REGION 10 CONFERENCE (TENCON), IEEE, 2020, pp. 685–689
2020
-
[47]
YOLOv8: You Only Look Once version 8,
Ultralytics, “YOLOv8: You Only Look Once version 8,” https://github.com/ultralytics/ultralytics, 2023
2023
-
[48]
Method of detecting moving objects,
Masci, F., “Method of detecting moving objects,” , Oct. 13 2022. US Patent App. 17/616,326
2022
-
[49]
Verifiable Obstacle Detection,
Bansal, A., Kim, H., Yu, S., Li, B., Hovakimyan, N., Caccamo, M., and Sha, L., “Verifiable Obstacle Detection,”2022 IEEE 33rd International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering (ISSRE), IEEE, 2022, pp. 61–72
2022
-
[50]
Self-supervised Obstacle Detection during Autonomous UAS Taxi Operations,
Shaikh, M. Y., Petrunin, I., and Zolotas, A., “Self-supervised Obstacle Detection during Autonomous UAS Taxi Operations,” AIAA SCITECH 2023 Forum, 2023, p. 2672
2023
-
[51]
Perception simplex: Verifiable collision avoidance in autonomous vehicles amidst obstacle detection faults,
Bansal, A., Kim, H., Yu, S., Li, B., Hovakimyan, N., Caccamo, M., and Sha, L., “Perception simplex: Verifiable collision avoidance in autonomous vehicles amidst obstacle detection faults,”Software Testing, Verification and Reliability, 2024, p. e1879
2024
-
[52]
A Formal Basis for the Heuristic Determination of Minimum Cost Paths,
Hart, P. E., Nilsson, N. J., and Raphael, B., “A Formal Basis for the Heuristic Determination of Minimum Cost Paths,”IEEE transactions on Systems Science and Cybernetics, Vol. 4, No. 2, 1968, pp. 100–107
1968
-
[53]
Planning Algorithms,
LaValle, S., “Planning Algorithms,”Cambridge University Press, Vol. 2, 2006, pp. 3671–3678
2006
-
[54]
Design and Analysis of a NovelL1 Adaptive Control Architecture With Guaranteed Transient Performance,
Cao, C., and Hovakimyan, N., “Design and Analysis of a NovelL1 Adaptive Control Architecture With Guaranteed Transient Performance,”IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, Vol. 53, No. 2, 2008, pp. 586–591
2008
-
[55]
Autonomous Vehicle Positioning With GPS in Urban Canyon Environments,
Cui, Y., and Ge, S. S., “Autonomous Vehicle Positioning With GPS in Urban Canyon Environments,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation, Vol. 19, No. 1, 2003, pp. 15–25
2003
-
[56]
Effects of Multipath Reception on GPS Positioning Performance,
Kos, T., Markezic, I., and Pokrajcic, J., “Effects of Multipath Reception on GPS Positioning Performance,”Proceedings ELMAR-2010, IEEE, 2010, pp. 399–402. 15
2010
Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.