Real-Time Bayesian Detection of Drift-Evasive GNSS Spoofing in Reinforcement Learning Based UAV Deconfliction

Deepak Kumar Panda; Weisi Guo

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Real-Time Bayesian Detection of Drift-Evasive GNSS Spoofing in Reinforcement Learning Based UAV Deconfliction

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Monitoring the temporal sequence of Q-values from an RL critic with Bayesian online change point detection detects drift-evasive GNSS spoofing attacks more accurately and with fewer false alarms than conventional signal-level…

desk verdict A genuinely useful but under-reported idea: monitoring an RL critic's Q-values with BOCPD for GNSS spoofing, currently short on numbers and parameter reporting. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.11173 v1 pith:KUAJTEIM submitted 2025-07-15 cs.LG

Deepak Kumar Panda , Weisi Guo This is my paper

classification cs.LG

keywords GNSSspoofingdetectionBayesianonlinechangepointreinforcementlearningcriticQ-valuesUAVnavigationdrift-evasiveattacktemporalanomaly

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

Drift-evasive GNSS spoofing attacks push a UAV's estimated position gradually toward a target, so no single signal measurement looks wrong. This paper argues that the gradual corruption nevertheless shows up in the reinforcement learning critic's state-action value estimates, which drop and stay low when the agent's observations are being manipulated. The authors attach a Bayesian online change point detector to that Q-value stream, and report that it flags the attack onset faster and with lower false-positive and false-negative rates than signal thresholding, the Page-Hinkley test, and a semi-supervised LSTM autoencoder. If the effect is real, any RL value function can double as an integrity monitor for its own inputs, giving a warning that lets the UAV switch to alternative sensing before the mission is lost.

What carries the argument

The central object is the run-length posterior of BOCPD applied to the temporal sequence of critic values $q_t = Q(\Phi_t, a_t)$. BOCPD treats the sequence as piecewise stationary, with a change point at time $t$ resetting the run length $l_t$ to zero; a Gaussian predictive model $q_t \sim N(\mu_t, \sigma^2)$ with a Normal-inverse-gamma prior gives the likelihood of each new value under each candidate run length. The most probable run length $\hat{l}_t$ serves as the detection statistic, and a value below the threshold $\tau$ flags the spoofing attack. The mechanism works because the critic encodes the agent's confidence in its own state observations, so a corrupted state produces consistently low Q-values rather than an isolated outlier.

What would settle it

Run the detector on attack-free missions that include a late, difficult obstacle encounter so the Q-values naturally drop; if the detector raises false alarms at that encounter, the fixed-mean Gaussian model is conflating natural value decay with an attack. Alternatively, start a drift-evasive attack after the Q-values have already converged to zero and measure whether the detector can still see it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that a latent quantity inside an RL agent—the critic's Q-value—carries a detectable signature of a spoofing attack that is invisible at the signal level. Under nominal conditions the Q-values follow a distribution that can be summarized by a mean and variance learned from attack-free trajectories. When a drift-evasive attack smoothly bends the estimated position, the Q-values shift downward and cease to converge toward zero, and BOCPD on this sequence separates that shift from ordinary fluctuation. In comparisons over 20 test episodes, the Q-value BOCPD detector achieves near-perfect accuracy and the lowest false-positive and false-negative rates among the tested methods.

Load-bearing premise

The detector assumes the critic's ordinary Q-values stay close to a fixed Gaussian baseline, but in a successful mission those values naturally drift toward zero, so an attack that coincides with that natural drift could be missed or falsely flagged.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

An RL agent's critic network can serve as a built-in integrity monitor, so detection requires no extra sensors or labelled attack data.
Because BOCPD operates online with a recursive update, the alert can be raised within a few time steps of the attack onset, enabling a timely switch to alternate sensing.
The same principle should apply to any spoofed observation channel that feeds an RL value function, not only GNSS pseudoranges.
Detectors that watch raw signals alone will continue to miss this class of attacks; value-based temporal monitoring is a complementary layer.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The fixed-mean Gaussian prior is a weak point: nominal Q-values naturally decay toward zero as a mission succeeds, so a late-stage attack could be masked by that decay. A non-stationary prior or a baseline that adapts to mission progress would be a natural extension.
An adversary who knows the critic could in principle construct spoofed states that keep Q-values high, defeating the detector; testing adversarial counter-examples on the same simulator would bound the method's robustness.
The approach could be transferred to other RL-based cyber-physical systems, such as automated vehicles or robotic manipulators, wherever a critic value stream is already being computed for control.
BOCPD's hazard rate and threshold $\tau$ are hyperparameters; a sensitivity study across obstacle densities and attack speeds would show where the near-perfect accuracy degrades.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: the idea is real and cheap — monitor the critic's Q-values with BOCPD as an integrity monitor for GNSS spoofing — but the paper as written doesn't give us the numbers to know whether it works. The novel bit is the signal choice, and that's a genuine, modest contribution. The GNSS least-squares and BOCPD recursions are standard and correctly reproduced. The empirical premise, that a drift-evasive spoof depresses critic values relative to nominal, is plausible and qualitatively shown in Figures 3–4. I buy it as a reasonable hypothesis.

The soft spots are load-bearing. No numerical results are reported anywhere: Figure 5 is described in words, and the accuracy, false-positive, and false-negative values are not in the text. The BOCPD hazard H and threshold tau are unreported, and the Gaussian nominal model is anchored to mu0/sigma0 from nominal trajectories. Figure 4 shows the nominal Q-stream trending toward zero as the mission succeeds, so a fixed-mean, fixed-variance Gaussian will flag that trend unless tau is tuned. That's a testable concern, not a fatal one, but the manuscript doesn't address it. Section IV's Eq. (17) updates the segment mean, so the detector partially absorbs the spoof-induced shift during the 50-step drift; detection delay depends on H, tau, and sigma0, none of which are reported. The baseline comparison also likely confounds detector choice with signal choice: BOCPD sees critic values, while PH and signal-threshold methods see raw signals. To claim superiority, you'd need all detectors on the same input.

The stress-test note is on target, and the reader's CONDITIONAL verdict is fair. That said, this is not a deeply flawed paper; it's an under-reported one. The central claim is plausible, and the method is simple enough that a careful re-run with numbers, parameters, and a matched baseline comparison would either confirm it or kill it. The authors should also address the non-stationary nominal distribution, either by using a more flexible predictive model or by reporting sensitivity to mu0/sigma0.

Who's this for? People working on RL robustness under observation-space attacks and GNSS anti-spoofing. A serious referee should engage, with the expectation of heavy revision. I'd want the numbers before citing it.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes using Bayesian online change point detection (BOCPD) on the temporal sequence of critic Q-values from a DDPG agent to detect drift-evasive GNSS spoofing in UAV navigation. It reproduces iterative least-squares GNSS position estimation, defines a smooth drift attack that gradually displaces the estimated position, and applies the standard BOCPD recursion to the Q-value stream. The reported experimental claim is that BOCPD on Q-values outperforms semi-supervised LSTM, Page-Hinkley, and signal-thresholding baselines in accuracy, false-positive rate, and false-negative rate, with near-perfect detection. The manuscript currently supports this claim only with qualitative descriptions of Figure 5 and omits the key detector parameters and numerical results.

Significance. If validated, the central idea is interesting and timely: an RL critic's Q-values can serve as an online integrity monitor for its own state inputs, providing a temporal detection signal that does not require labeled attack data. The GNSS least-squares equations and the BOCPD recursion are standard and appear correctly reproduced, and the threat model of drift-evasive spoofing is realistic and relevant. However, the empirical claim is not yet supported by reported numbers, the stability of nominal Q-values is questionable, and the comparison with baselines is not described in enough detail to judge fairness. The paper has a defensible premise but needs substantial additional evidence and parameter reporting before its central claim can be accepted.

major comments (4)

[§V-C, Fig. 5] The central claim of superior detection accuracy, false-positive rates, and false-negative rates rests entirely on a qualitative description of Figure 5; no numerical values, per-episode statistics, or standard deviations are reported in the text. Without the actual accuracy and error-rate numbers, the claimed near-perfect performance of BOCPD and its superiority over the Page-Hinkley test, the LSTM autoencoder, and signal thresholding cannot be assessed or reproduced.
[Algorithm 1, §IV] The detector's behavior is controlled by the hazard rate H and the run-length threshold τ in Algorithm 1, as well as by μ0 and σ0 computed from nominal trajectories, but none of these values are reported anywhere in the paper. In addition, no sensitivity analysis is provided for H, τ, or σ0, so the near-perfect detection rates could be the result of favorable parameter choices rather than a property of the method. The update of the segment mean in Eq. (17) also means that during the 50-step drift the model partially absorbs the spoof-induced shift, so detection delay and accuracy depend on these unreported parameters in a way that must be quantified.
[§IV, Fig. 4] The Gaussian predictive model assumes qt ~ N(μt, σ²) with μ0 and σ0 fixed from nominal data, but Figure 4 shows nominal Q-values systematically converging toward zero as the mission succeeds. A constant-mean, constant-variance Gaussian model with a constant hazard will tend to flag that natural convergence as a change point; the paper does not explain how the threshold τ separates benign mission-end convergence from attack-induced shifts, nor does it provide evidence that the nominal Q-stream is stable enough for the assumed model.
[§V-C] The comparison confounds detector choice with input-signal choice: BOCPD is applied to critic Q-values, while the baselines (signal thresholding, Page-Hinkley, and the semi-supervised LSTM) appear to be applied to raw GNSS or position information, but the manuscript never states what inputs each baseline received or how they were configured. To support the claim that BOCPD is a better detector, the baselines should either be run on the same Q-value stream or the comparison should be explicitly framed as an end-to-end system comparison with matched information sources and training procedures.

minor comments (5)

[§II-C, Eq. (9)] The state vector Φt is declared to be in R3, but the expression contains two R3 relative-position terms and an R3 velocity term, giving nine components; please correct the dimension or the definition.
[§II-E, Eq. (12)] The goal-seeking reward has a stray period after the fraction, and the indicator bonus Igoal is not clearly defined (e.g., whether Igoal=1 also applies at the success threshold state); please clean up the equation and its accompanying text.
[§V-A, Fig. 5] The experimental section reports results over 20 test episodes but does not describe how test episodes were generated, how many are attacked versus nominal, or whether the same start and obstacle configurations are used across detectors; please add this information.
[§V-C, references] The Page-Hinkley baseline is cited to a general streaming-framework reference [19], and the signal-level baselines are cited only to a vulnerability survey [5]; please provide implementation details or specific references for the exact detectors used in the comparison.
[§IV, Eq. (18)] The text mentions a Normal-inverse-gamma prior for conjugacy, but Eq. (18) uses only a Gaussian likelihood with fixed variance; please clarify the prior specification and state how σ0 is estimated from nominal data.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the detector is a standard BOCPD applied to critic Q-values, with independent external baselines.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is: define a drift-evasive GNSS spoofing model, train a DDPG critic, feed critic Q-values into a standard Bayesian online change point detection (BOCPD) algorithm, and compare against Page-Hinkley, an LSTM autoencoder, and signal-level thresholding. The BOCPD recursions are taken from Adams and MacKay (external reference [17]); the Gaussian predictive model is an explicit modeling assumption, not an input that is later renamed as an output. The parameters mu0 and sigma0 are calibrated from nominal trajectories, which is a standard anomaly-detection practice and does not by construction force the reported detection result, since the test episodes are separate and the paper claims generalization across 20 test episodes. The self-citations ([12] and [21]) provide the environment, transition model, and training setup; they are not used to justify the central detection claim or to forbid alternative detectors. No uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work, and no fitted quantity is relabeled as a prediction. The main weaknesses of the paper are reproducibility-related: the hazard rate H, threshold tau, and sigma0 are not reported, and the non-stationary nominal Q-stream shown in Figure 4 could in principle cause false positives unless the threshold is tuned. However, these are correctness and evidence-quality concerns, not circularity. The central claim therefore retains independent empirical content and is not equivalent to its inputs by definition.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical or algorithmic entities are postulated; the monitored Q-value stream is already produced by the RL critic. The central dependency is instead on fitted detector knobs (H, tau), nominal-data calibration (mu0, sigma0), and an attack model from the authors' own unreviewed simulator (ref 21).

free parameters (4)

hazard rate H = not reported
Controls the prior probability of a change point in Eq. 19; detection accuracy, false-positive rate, and false-negative rate all depend on its value, and no sensitivity analysis is given.
run-length threshold tau = not reported
Algorithm 1 line 12 uses hat_l <= tau to flag spoofing; this decision threshold directly determines the reported accuracy and error rates.
nominal critic statistics mu0, sigma0 = computed from nominal trajectories
The Gaussian predictive model is anchored to the mean and variance of nominal Q-values, so the detector is calibrated to the training distribution it is tested against.
attack drift time T_drift = 50 time steps, attack onset t = 100s
The reported performance is demonstrated for one drift duration toward one target (0,0,0); slower drifts or drifts toward states the critic scores highly are untested.

assumptions (4)

standard math BOCPD recursion and Gaussian/Normal-inverse-gamma conjugacy (Adams and MacKay 2007), Eqs. 16-18
The recursive run-length posterior update is taken as a given correct algorithm; no alternative derivation is attempted.
domain assumption Critic Q-values follow a Gaussian with segment-constant mean and variance
Section IV assumes qt ~ N(mu_t, sigma^2) with fixed sigma and recursively updated mean; no stationarity test is reported, and Figure 4 shows nominal values trending to zero.
domain assumption Spoofed states produce statistically detectable deviations in Q-values
The whole detector depends on the empirical premise that the spoofed trajectory's critic values depart from the nominal distribution; evidenced only by Figures 3-4 in one simulated setting.
domain assumption Adversary interpolates position linearly and emits consistent pseudoranges (Eqs. 13-14)
The attack model assumes a specific drift profile, timing synchronization, power control, and pseudorange consistency; performance under other attack profiles is untested.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Real-Time Bayesian Detection of Drift-Evasive GNSS Spoofing in Reinforcement Learning Based UAV Deconfliction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KUAJTEIM

@misc{pith2026250711173,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Real-Time Bayesian Detection of Drift-Evasive GNSS Spoofing in Reinforcement Learning Based UAV Deconfliction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KUAJTEIM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.11173}
}

read the original abstract

Autonomous unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) rely on global navigation satellite system (GNSS) pseudorange measurements for accurate real-time localization and navigation. However, this dependence exposes them to sophisticated spoofing threats, where adversaries manipulate pseudoranges to deceive UAV receivers. Among these, drift-evasive spoofing attacks subtly perturb measurements, gradually diverting the UAVs trajectory without triggering conventional signal-level anti-spoofing mechanisms. Traditional distributional shift detection techniques often require accumulating a threshold number of samples, causing delays that impede rapid detection and timely response. Consequently, robust temporal-scale detection methods are essential to identify attack onset and enable contingency planning with alternative sensing modalities, improving resilience against stealthy adversarial manipulations. This study explores a Bayesian online change point detection (BOCPD) approach that monitors temporal shifts in value estimates from a reinforcement learning (RL) critic network to detect subtle behavioural deviations in UAV navigation. Experimental results show that this temporal value-based framework outperforms conventional GNSS spoofing detectors, temporal semi-supervised learning frameworks, and the Page-Hinkley test, achieving higher detection accuracy and lower false-positive and false-negative rates for drift-evasive spoofing attacks.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.11173 by the authors.

**Figure 3.** The comparison of the state-action value estimates [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** The comparison of the state-action value estimates [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Comparison of GNSS spoofing detection performance ov [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

Curriculum-Adapted Robust Reinforcement Learning for UAV Deconfliction in Adversarial Environments
cs.LG 2025-06 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

A curriculum that aligns temporal-difference error distributions across increasing adversarial perturbations is claimed to make UAV policies robust to unseen GNSS spoofing attacks, with a generalization certificate.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

21 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

Uav trajectory optimization for tim e- constrained data collection in uav-enabled environmental monitoring systems,

K. Liu and J. Zheng, “Uav trajectory optimization for tim e- constrained data collection in uav-enabled environmental monitoring systems,” IEEE Internet of Things Journal, vol. 9, no. 23, pp. 24 300–24 314, 2022

work page 2022
[2]

Efﬁcient path-following for urban logistics: A fuzzy cont rol strategy for consumer uavs under disturbance constraints,

X. Shao, J. Du, Y . Xia, Z. Zhang, X. Hou, and M. Debbah, “Efﬁcient path-following for urban logistics: A fuzzy cont rol strategy for consumer uavs under disturbance constraints, ” IEEE Transactions on Consumer Electronics , 2025

work page 2025
[3]

Senso r planning for a symbiotic uav and ugv system for precision agriculture,

P . Tokekar, J. V ander Hook, D. Mulla, and V . Isler, “Senso r planning for a symbiotic uav and ugv system for precision agriculture,” IEEE transactions on robotics , vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 1498–1511, 2016

work page 2016
[4]

Intelligent gnss/ins integrate d nav- igation system for a commercial uav ﬂight control system,

G. Zhang and L.-T. Hsu, “Intelligent gnss/ins integrate d nav- igation system for a commercial uav ﬂight control system,” Aerospace science and technology , vol. 80, pp. 368–380, 2018

work page 2018
[5]

Known vulner- abilities of global navigation satellite systems, status, and potential mitigation techniques,

R. T. Ioannides, T. Pany, and G. Gibbons, “Known vulner- abilities of global navigation satellite systems, status, and potential mitigation techniques,” Proceedings of the IEEE , vol. 104, no. 6, pp. 1174–1194, 2016

work page 2016
[6]

Tractor beam: Safe-hijacking of consumer drones with adaptive gps spooﬁng,

J. Noh et al. , “Tractor beam: Safe-hijacking of consumer drones with adaptive gps spooﬁng,” ACM Transactions on Privacy and Security (TOPS) , vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 1–26, 2019

work page 2019
[7]

Autonomous navigation of uavs in large-scale complex environments: A deep reinforcement learning approach,

C. Wang, J. Wang, Y . Shen, and X. Zhang, “Autonomous navigation of uavs in large-scale complex environments: A deep reinforcement learning approach,” IEEE Transactions on V ehicular Technology , vol. 68, no. 3, pp. 2124–2136, 2019

work page 2019
[8]

An approach to detect gnss spooﬁng,

A. Broumandan, R. Siddakatte, and G. Lachapelle, “An approach to detect gnss spooﬁng,” IEEE Aerospace and Electronic Systems Magazine , vol. 32, no. 8, pp. 64–75, 2017

work page 2017

Show all 21 references

[9]

Trusted multisource fusion navigation for uav under gnss interference and spoof - ing attacks,

C. Meng, Q. Hu, S. S. Ge, and D. Li, “Trusted multisource fusion navigation for uav under gnss interference and spoof - ing attacks,” IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics , 2025

2025
[10]

Deep neural network approach to detect gnss spooﬁng attacks,

P . Borhani-Darian, H. Li, P . Wu, and P . Closas, “Deep neural network approach to detect gnss spooﬁng attacks,” in Proceedings of the 33rd International Technical Meeting of the Satellite Division of The Institute of Navigation (IO N GNSS+ 2020) , 2020, pp. 3241–3252

2020
[11]

A deep learning base d induced gnss spoof detection framework,

A. Iqbal, M. N. Aman, and B. Sikdar, “A deep learning base d induced gnss spoof detection framework,” IEEE transactions on machine learning in communications and networking , 2024

2024
[12]

Generative adversarial eva- sion and out-of-distribution detection for uav cyber-atta cks,

D. K. Panda and W. Guo, “Generative adversarial eva- sion and out-of-distribution detection for uav cyber-atta cks,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.21142 , 2025

2025
[13]

Deep one-class classiﬁcation,

L. Ruff et al. , “Deep one-class classiﬁcation,” in Inter- national conference on machine learning , PMLR, 2018, pp. 4393–4402

2018
[14]

Class-aware contrastive semi-supervised learning,

F. Yang et al. , “Class-aware contrastive semi-supervised learning,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2022, pp. 14 421– 14 430

2022
[15]

Feed- back recurrent autoencoder,

Y . Yang, G. Sautière, J. J. Ryu, and T. S. Cohen, “Feed- back recurrent autoencoder,” in ICASSP 2020-2020 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP) , IEEE, 2020, pp. 3347–3351

2020
[16]

Unsupervise d machine anomaly detection using autoencoder and temporal convolutional network,

Z. Li, Y . Sun, L. Yang, Z. Zhao, and X. Chen, “Unsupervise d machine anomaly detection using autoencoder and temporal convolutional network,” IEEE Transactions on Instrumenta- tion and Measurement , vol. 71, pp. 1–13, 2022

2022
[17]

Bayesian online change- point detection,

R. P . Adams and D. J. MacKay, “Bayesian online change- point detection,” arXiv preprint arXiv:0710.3742 , 2007

2007 arXiv
[18]

Long short term memory networks for anomaly detection in time series,

P . Malhotra, L. Vig, G. Shroff, P . Agarwal, et al. , “Long short term memory networks for anomaly detection in time series,” in Proceedings, vol. 89, 2015, p. 94

2015
[19]

Sciki t- multiﬂow: A multi-output streaming framework,

J. Montiel, J. Read, A. Bifet, and T. Abdessalem, “Sciki t- multiﬂow: A multi-output streaming framework,” Journal of Machine Learning Research , vol. 19, no. 72, pp. 1–5, 2018

2018
[20]

Gnss spooﬁng and de- tection,

M. L. Psiaki and T. E. Humphreys, “Gnss spooﬁng and de- tection,” Proceedings of the IEEE , vol. 104, no. 6, pp. 1258– 1270, 2016

2016
[21]

Curriculum- guided antifragile reinforcement learning for secure uav d e- conﬂiction under observation-space attacks,

D. K. Panda, A. Perrusquia, and W. Guo, “Curriculum- guided antifragile reinforcement learning for secure uav d e- conﬂiction under observation-space attacks,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.21129, 2025

2025 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Uav trajectory optimization for tim e- constrained data collection in uav-enabled environmental monitoring systems,

K. Liu and J. Zheng, “Uav trajectory optimization for tim e- constrained data collection in uav-enabled environmental monitoring systems,” IEEE Internet of Things Journal, vol. 9, no. 23, pp. 24 300–24 314, 2022

work page 2022

[2] [2]

Efﬁcient path-following for urban logistics: A fuzzy cont rol strategy for consumer uavs under disturbance constraints,

X. Shao, J. Du, Y . Xia, Z. Zhang, X. Hou, and M. Debbah, “Efﬁcient path-following for urban logistics: A fuzzy cont rol strategy for consumer uavs under disturbance constraints, ” IEEE Transactions on Consumer Electronics , 2025

work page 2025

[3] [3]

Senso r planning for a symbiotic uav and ugv system for precision agriculture,

P . Tokekar, J. V ander Hook, D. Mulla, and V . Isler, “Senso r planning for a symbiotic uav and ugv system for precision agriculture,” IEEE transactions on robotics , vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 1498–1511, 2016

work page 2016

[4] [4]

Intelligent gnss/ins integrate d nav- igation system for a commercial uav ﬂight control system,

G. Zhang and L.-T. Hsu, “Intelligent gnss/ins integrate d nav- igation system for a commercial uav ﬂight control system,” Aerospace science and technology , vol. 80, pp. 368–380, 2018

work page 2018

[5] [5]

Known vulner- abilities of global navigation satellite systems, status, and potential mitigation techniques,

R. T. Ioannides, T. Pany, and G. Gibbons, “Known vulner- abilities of global navigation satellite systems, status, and potential mitigation techniques,” Proceedings of the IEEE , vol. 104, no. 6, pp. 1174–1194, 2016

work page 2016

[6] [6]

Tractor beam: Safe-hijacking of consumer drones with adaptive gps spooﬁng,

J. Noh et al. , “Tractor beam: Safe-hijacking of consumer drones with adaptive gps spooﬁng,” ACM Transactions on Privacy and Security (TOPS) , vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 1–26, 2019

work page 2019

[7] [7]

Autonomous navigation of uavs in large-scale complex environments: A deep reinforcement learning approach,

C. Wang, J. Wang, Y . Shen, and X. Zhang, “Autonomous navigation of uavs in large-scale complex environments: A deep reinforcement learning approach,” IEEE Transactions on V ehicular Technology , vol. 68, no. 3, pp. 2124–2136, 2019

work page 2019

[8] [8]

An approach to detect gnss spooﬁng,

A. Broumandan, R. Siddakatte, and G. Lachapelle, “An approach to detect gnss spooﬁng,” IEEE Aerospace and Electronic Systems Magazine , vol. 32, no. 8, pp. 64–75, 2017

work page 2017