Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 56 references

Plan-and-Avoid: Real-Time Aircraft Trajectory Coordination in a Multi-Agent Environment

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A two-stage plan-and-avoid loop resolves every predicted well-clear conflict in its 575-encounter benchmark, with a worst-case end-to-end time of 5.7 seconds.

desk verdict A genuine two-stage priority-trajectory coordination architecture with sound uncertainty math and a large real-data benchmark, but the all-575 well-clear claim is only established on a 1 Hz sampled grid, not in continuous time. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.06648 v1 pith:SDH2UKWW submitted 2026-08-06 cs.RO

Huseyin Emre Tekaslan , Ella M. Atkins , Natasha Neogi This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords multi-agentairspacecoordinationwell-clearseparationcontingencylandingplanningconflictresolutionadvisoryuncertainty-deflatedADS-Bbenchmarkprioritytrajectorydetect-and-avoid
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

The paper claims that a declared priority trajectory, such as an emergency landing path, can be preserved in shared airspace by combining a conflict-aware planner with a fast advisory layer that modifies only the surrounding cooperative traffic. It reports that in a benchmark built from real ADS-B traffic over Washington, D.C., all 575 predicted loss-of-well-clear encounters received feasible resolution advisories, with a worst-case end-to-end time of 5.7 seconds on a personal computer and 93.5% of advisories issued at least 35 seconds before the predicted conflict. The significance is that an aircraft with limited maneuverability does not have to absorb the burden of separation; nearby aircraft can be given simple, explainable instructions within seconds. The framework is explicitly positioned as complementary to Detect-and-Avoid, which remains as a downstream safety net for unexpected deviations.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing device is the uncertainty-deflated separation metric $\delta_H(t)=\max(0,\|\hat{r}_H(t)\|-\Delta\bar{e}_H)$ and $\delta_V(t)=\max(0,|\hat{r}_V(t)|-\Delta\bar{e}_V)$, which converts confidence-bounded position errors into deterministic buffers using the reverse triangle inequality and the union bound. This lets both the planner and the advisory optimizer check well-clear separation with a distribution-free confidence guarantee, replacing probabilistic position uncertainty with inflated separation thresholds. The advisory side is carried by a rank-ordered action set $\mathcal{R}=\{R_{Halt},R_{Speed},R_{Alt},R_{Extend},R_{Divert}\}$, where each action is a trajectory transformation solved as a quadratic program subject to two constraints: $\psi_1$ enforces robust well-clear separation with the priority ego including its speed-tracking time window, and $\psi_2$ requires that the advised trajectory does not increase cumulative or peak interaction risk against remaining nominal traffic.

What would settle it

Run the released implementation on the same 575-encounter benchmark with an added simulation layer in which intruders execute their advisories with small tracking errors, such as a 5 knot speed error or a 0.5 degree heading error, while the ego stays within its declared speed bounds; any resulting loss of well-clear separation would show the advisory pipeline is not robust to execution noise within the assumed envelope.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that Plan-and-Avoid (PAA) can turn an emergency landing trajectory into a system-level coordination event. The Plan stage extends a gradient-guided contingency landing planner with spatiotemporal conflict cost, using uncertainty-deflated separation buffers derived from confidence bounds on position error; the Avoid stage then issues rank-ordered unilateral advisories, halt, speed, altitude, extend, and divert, to conflicting intruders, each formulated as a quadratic program that must keep well-clear separation with the priority aircraft and not worsen interaction risk with other nominal traffic. The benchmark over more than 900 forced-landing cases using real ADS-B traffic from the Washington, D.C., airspace yielded feasible advisories for all 575 unique conflict encounters, with worst-case end-to-end response time 5.7 seconds including a 1 second two-way datalink delay, and 93.5% of advisories meeting the 35 second RTCA DO-365 alerting threshold.

Load-bearing premise

The framework assumes intruders share accurate time-stamped intent and will follow the issued advisories; if an intruder deviates from its declared intent or ignores an advisory, well-clear separation is not guaranteed, which the paper acknowledges by positioning Detect-and-Avoid as a downstream safety layer.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Conflict-aware search planning reduces loss-of-well-clear exposure by 45.5% in accumulated severity and increases conflict-free cases from 50.4% to 60% compared with a Dubins baseline.
  • All 575 unique conflict encounters in the benchmark received feasible advisories, and speed regulation was the most common resolution (36.2%), suggesting that many conflicts can be resolved by modest timing changes.
  • The 1 second optimizer limit preserves the overall distribution of advisory types compared with 15 seconds of optimization, with speed remaining dominant and only a moderate shift from extend to divert advisories.
  • Worst-case end-to-end runtime of 5.7 seconds on a personal computer, including path planning, advisory generation, and a 1 second datalink delay, means the coordination loop closes within seconds of the priority trajectory being declared.
  • A large majority, 93.5%, of advisories are issued at least 35 seconds before the predicted conflict, the RTCA DO-365 alerting threshold.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same architecture could invert the priority: instead of a distressed aircraft, the protected trajectory could be a time-critical delivery, a VIP route, or a corridor closure, and the advisory set would apply with unchanged logic.
  • The interaction-risk constraint $\psi_2$ is what makes the approach scalable; without it, resolving one conflict could cascade into new conflicts, and the paper's benchmark implicitly tests this through the requirement that all 575 encounters be resolved sequentially.
  • Because 6.5% of advisories fall inside the 35 second DAA horizon, those cases would already be in the reactive DAA regime; a testable improvement would be to pre-plan candidate priority trajectories before declaration, shortening the effective response time.
  • The 1 second optimizer limit trades optimality for latency; the paper's own 15 second comparison shows a modest total benefit, suggesting that parallel or cloud computing could close the gap without violating the real-time bound.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces Plan-and-Avoid (PAA), a two-stage framework for coordinating cooperative airspace traffic around a declared priority trajectory. The Plan stage extends a previously developed contingency landing planner with multi-agent intent and uncertainty-inflated well-clear constraints, while the Avoid stage generates rank-ordered unilateral advisories (halt, speed, altitude, extend, divert) for surrounding traffic, formulated as quadratic programs with a robust time-window well-clear constraint and an interaction-risk constraint. The framework is evaluated on more than 900 forced-landing scenarios built from real ADS-B data, resolving all 575 predicted conflict encounters within a reported worst-case end-to-end time of 5.7 s, with 93.5% of advisories satisfying the RTCA DO-365 35 s temporal threshold. Two representative 6-DOF dynamic simulations are also presented to check that the kinematic advisories remain dynamically realizable.

Significance. If the claims are fully validated, PAA is a useful and original contribution to cooperative multi-agent contingency coordination: it couples conflict-aware priority planning with an advisory hierarchy for surrounding traffic, and it is evaluated on a large public-data benchmark rather than only on hand-picked cases. The paper is honest about the suboptimality of the planner, explicitly reports cases where the Dubins baseline performs better, and makes the software openly available. The probabilistic separation-buffer propositions (Propositions 1 and 2) are mathematically sound and provide a distribution-free way to convert position uncertainty into deterministic separation margins. However, the headline claims currently outrun what is verified: the all-575 feasibility result is checked only on 1 Hz sampled trajectories, the abstract's "well-clear separation for all traffic" is stronger than the interaction-risk constraint actually enforced, and the reported "worst-case" end-to-end time mixes a mean-plus-3-sigma planning time with a worst-case advisory time. These issues are local and fixable, but they are load-bearing for the paper's central claims.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section VI, Eq. (51)] The claim that all 575 conflicts are feasibly resolved is verified only on trajectories sampled at 1 Hz, as stated in Section VI and Section V, whereas the constraint ψ1 in Eq. (44) is defined as a maximum over continuous time t and the continuous timing window ξ∈W_e(t). At the benchmark airspeeds of 70–350 kts, an aircraft moves 36–180 m between consecutive 1 Hz samples, so a well-clear violation can occur between samples even if every sample satisfies the constraint. Since the two 6-DOF simulations are explicitly representative cases, the universal "feasible for all 575" statement is not currently established for continuous-time trajectories. Please add a post-hoc dense re-check or an analytic inter-sample bound, and either report the continuous-time result or restrict the claim to the sampled trajectory representation.
  2. [Abstract and Section IV, Eq. (49)] The abstract states that the framework maintains "well-clear separation for all traffic," but the interaction constraint ψ2 in Eq. (49) only requires that the advised intruder trajectory not increase the cumulative and peak interaction-risk functionals I_J and J_max relative to the nominal trajectory. It does not require well-clear separation between the modified intruder and the remaining nominal traffic, and Table II only counts conflicts with the ego priority trajectory. The benchmark therefore does not evaluate well-clear separation among all pairs of traffic. Please either add a post-advisory well-clear check against all remaining traffic, or soften the claim to "resolves predicted well-clear conflicts with the priority trajectory while not increasing interaction risk with other traffic."
  3. [Section VI.E and Abstract] The paper calls 5.7 s a "worst-case end-to-end response time," but Section VI.E reports that path-planning runtime is the mean plus three standard deviations, while resolution-advisory runtime is the worst case across test cases. A mean-plus-3σ planning time added to a worst-case advisory time and a fixed 1 s datalink delay is not a rigorous worst-case upper bound for the end-to-end pipeline. Please report the true maximum from the distribution in Fig. 17, or rename the claim to a "high-confidence end-to-end time" and justify the statistical aggregation.
  4. [Sections III.B and VII] The all-575 feasibility result is computed against nominal declared trajectory intent and assumes that intruders will execute the issued advisories. The paper acknowledges in Section VII that DAA is needed as a downstream safety layer for stochastic deviations, but the abstract and conclusions do not carry this qualification. Because noncompliance or intent deviation voids the separation guarantee, the central claim should be qualified as holding only for cooperative intruders that follow their declared intent and accept the advisory; otherwise the abstract's wording is stronger than the model supports.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section IV.E, Eq. (70)] The holding-point tuple is written as q=(φ, λ, h, h, χ), which contains the altitude h twice; this appears to be a typo, since the surrounding text describes an admissible altitude interval with a floor and ceiling.
  2. [Section IV.E, Eq. (72)] In the definition of γ̃, the first fraction (−γ_thr−γ)/(−γ_thr−γ) is identically 1, so the expression as written does not encode the intended penalty for operating outside the preferred flight-path-angle range. Please re-check the normalization formula.
  3. [Section IV.D, text near Eq. (66)] The sentence saying the final advisory state "may lie backward in time compared to initial advisory state" is confusing and appears inconsistent with τ_e(t_rec−t_on) = s'_rec, which requires t_rec ≥ t_on for a nonnegative extension duration. Please clarify or correct the intended meaning.
  4. [References] References [9] and [10] appear to be the same paper by the same authors with the same title and page range; one of them should be removed or replaced with a distinct source.
  5. [Title] The title uses "Plan-and-Avoid" with a hyphen while the text uses "Plan–and–Avoid" with en dashes; please use a single consistent spelling across the paper.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation chain found; the framework's evaluation is self-consistent with its own well-clear model, but that is a validation-gap issue rather than circularity.

full rationale

The paper's central claims—feasible advisories for all 575 conflicts, 5.7 s worst-case runtime, and 93.5% DO-365 threshold compliance—are computed from an explicit optimization (Eq. 51) subject to constraints ψ1 and ψ2. Feasibility is defined by the same well-clear predicate used to detect conflicts (Eqs. 35 and 44), so the 100% success rate is a self-consistency result rather than a circular derivation: the advisory solver can fail, and the paper reports rank-ordered outcomes and runtime limits. Position-error bounds come from external FAA certification documents [48, 49], not from fitted outputs. The Plan stage builds on the authors' open-source contingency planner [36–39], but it is cited as prior implementation, and the dynamic multi-agent extension in Section III.B is new content; no load-bearing argument reduces to a self-citation. Propositions 1 and 2 are proven from triangle-inequality and union-bound arguments. The main caveat is sampling: Section V states trajectories are 'discrete, sampled at a finite frequency' and Section VI sets 'a constant rate of 1 Hz'; hence the all-575 feasibility result is established on the sampled time grid, not proven in continuous time. This is a correctness and validation limitation, not a circular step. No fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction, and no author-imported uniqueness theorem is invoked.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The framework rests on cooperative intent sharing and advisory compliance; these are domain assumptions stated in the paper. The planning and advisory cost functions include hand-chosen sensitivity parameters kH, kV and a runtime limit, and the probabilistic position-error bounds are never calibrated, so the uncertainty-aware guarantee is qualitative.

free parameters (5)
  • k_H = 1
    Sensitivity of the horizontal LoWC penalty in Eq. (37); hand-chosen, no sensitivity analysis reported.
  • k_V = 0.005
    Sensitivity of the vertical LoWC penalty in Eq. (37); hand-chosen, no sensitivity analysis reported.
  • gamma_thr = 3 deg
    Preferred flight-path-angle bound for the Divert advisory (Section IV.E); hand-chosen.
  • t_limit = 1 s
    Optimization runtime limit for advisory generation (Section VI.D); chosen as a real-time compromise and affects which advisories are found.
  • pH, pV
    Design parameters for confidence-bounded position error (Definition 2); never instantiated or calibrated in the evaluation, leaving the probabilistic guarantee unquantified.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Cooperative intruders share time-stamped position intent over the prediction horizon.
    Section III.B states this assumption; conflict prediction and advisory generation rely on nominal intruder trajectories.
  • domain assumption Intruders accept and execute the issued advisories.
    Section IV and Discussion; the term 'cooperative' implies compliance, and no enforcement mechanism is modeled.
  • domain assumption Position-error confidence bounds from FAA certification are valid with the prescribed probabilities.
    Section VI and Table I adopt eH/eV from AC 20-138D and AC 20-165B; the associated pH/pV are never empirically validated.
  • domain assumption ADS-B trajectories from conventional air traffic are a representative proxy for future sUAS/AAM traffic.
    Section VI and Discussion acknowledge this is a proxy, not actual sUAS/AAM traffic.
  • domain assumption The 35 s advisory lead time is a meaningful proxy for RTCA DO-365 modified tau compliance.
    Section VI.D reports the percentage of advisories with lead time >= 35 s; DO-365 well clear uses a modified tau metric, not simply time to conflict.
  • domain assumption The derivative-free multi-start optimizer finds a feasible advisory if one exists within t_limit.
    Section V states completeness is advisory-relative and depends on the optimization routine recovering a feasible solution.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Plan-and-Avoid: Real-Time Aircraft Trajectory Coordination in a Multi-Agent Environment." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SDH2UKWW

@misc{pith2026260806648,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Plan-and-Avoid: Real-Time Aircraft Trajectory Coordination in a Multi-Agent Environment},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SDH2UKWW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.06648}
}
read the original abstract

This paper presents a real-time Plan-and-Avoid (PAA framework for coordinating cooperative multi-agent airspace operations around a declared priority trajectory. The priority trajectory represents an aircraft flight plan that must be preserved because of constrained maneuverability, an emergency, a mission-critical task, or assigned operational priority. The framework predicts uncertainty-aware, well-clear separation violations with surrounding traffic and, when the priority plan alone cannot maintain separation, generates vehicle-constrained unilateral advisories that modify nearby aircraft trajectories to maintain well-clear separation for all traffic. The approach is applicable to any declared priority trajectory. This paper demonstrates the Plan component using a contingency landing planner to generate candidate priority trajectories. PAA then identifies nearby aircraft passing too close to this priority trajectory and issues Avoid resolution advisories to these aircraft. The framework is tested using real-world Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) traffic from the Washington, D.C., airspace across more than 900 forced-landing cases, totaling over 140 hours of simulated flight. The PAA framework generates feasible cooperative advisories for all 575 unique conflict encounters, with a worst-case end-to-end response time of 5.7 s on a personal computer, including priority trajectory planning, advisory generation, and 1 s two-way datalink delay. In total, 93.5% of generated advisories satisfy the 35 s RTCA DO-365 Detect-and-Avoid temporal threshold. These results demonstrate low-latency coordination for preserving priority trajectories while maintaining well-clear separation through real-time automated advisory generation. Future work will quantify advisory-induced delays and their operational impacts.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.06648 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A representative aircraft state expansion on the horizontal plane. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Aircraft pair geometry in a local coordinate frame, showing position [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Instantaneous horizontal and vertical separations. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (14 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: An example S-turn Dubins path geometry on the horizontal plane. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: A validation case with a stationary VTOL intruder. The red cylinder [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: A validation case comparing optimal and suboptimal contingency landing solutions with an intruder in cruise flight. The red cylinder represents the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Distribution of simultaneous airborne agents aggregated over 20 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparison of the search-based contingency landing solution and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Spatial distribution of forced landing and dynamic agent trajectories. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The cyan and green markers respectively indicate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_11.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Conflict-aware contingency landing planning benchmark statistics. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_10.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Separation margins before and after deconfliction with dynamic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Altitude and divert resolution advisories with dynamic realizations. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Separation margins for the case shown in Fig. 13. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Comparison of optimization outcomes under 15 s and 1 s runtime limits. Advisory distributions are shown excluding halt advisories, with percentages [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Plan-and-Avoid execution runtime: path planning runtime is reported [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: End-to-end runtime distribution of the Plan-and-Avoid pipeline for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_17.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Multi-uav col- laborative dynamic task allocation method based on isom and attention mechanism,

    J. Wu, J. Zhang, Y . Sun, X. Li, L. Gao, and G. Han, “Multi-uav col- laborative dynamic task allocation method based on isom and attention mechanism,”IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 73, no. 5, pp. 6225–6235, 2024

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Real-time task allocation for uav swarms in complex environments via dynamic hierarchical attention gnn (dha-gnn),

    X. Wang, Z. Ma, S. Shi, and H. Gong, “Real-time task allocation for uav swarms in complex environments via dynamic hierarchical attention gnn (dha-gnn),”IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering, vol. 23, pp. 2573–2591, 2026

    work page 2026

  3. [3]

    Advanced air mobility: Innovations, applications, challenges, and future potential,

    W. Raza, J. Renkhoff, O. Ogirimah, G. K. Bawa, and R. S. Stansbury, “Advanced air mobility: Innovations, applications, challenges, and future potential,”Journal of Air Transportation, vol. 33, no. 2, p. 169–187, Apr. 2025. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.2514/1.D0440

    doi:10.2514/1.d0440 2025

  4. [4]

    Multi-agent rein- forcement learning-based coordinated dynamic task allocation for het- erogenous uavs,

    D. Liu, L. Dou, R. Zhang, X. Zhang, and Q. Zong, “Multi-agent rein- forcement learning-based coordinated dynamic task allocation for het- erogenous uavs,”IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 72, no. 4, pp. 4372–4383, 2022

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Cooperative task allocation with simultaneous arrival and resource constraint for multi-uav using a genetic algorithm,

    F. Yan, J. Chu, J. Hu, and X. Zhu, “Cooperative task allocation with simultaneous arrival and resource constraint for multi-uav using a genetic algorithm,”Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 245, p. 123023, 2024

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Multi-uav coverage path planning: A distributed online cooperation method,

    W. Hu, Y . Yu, S. Liu, C. She, L. Guo, B. Vucetic, and Y . Li, “Multi-uav coverage path planning: A distributed online cooperation method,”IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 72, no. 9, pp. 11 727–11 740, 2023

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    A fault-tolerant multi-agent reinforcement learning framework for unmanned aerial vehicles–unmanned ground vehicle coverage path planning,

    M. Ramezani, M. A. Amiri Atashgah, and A. Rezaee, “A fault-tolerant multi-agent reinforcement learning framework for unmanned aerial vehicles–unmanned ground vehicle coverage path planning,”Drones, vol. 8, no. 10, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.mdpi.com/ 2504-446X/8/10/537

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    An improved artificial potential field method for path planning and formation control of the multi-uav systems,

    Z. Pan, C. Zhang, Y . Xia, H. Xiong, and X. Shao, “An improved artificial potential field method for path planning and formation control of the multi-uav systems,”IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems II: Express Briefs, vol. 69, no. 3, pp. 1129–1133, 2021

    2021

Show all 56 references
  1. [9]

    Comprehensive review of drones collision avoidance schemes: Chal- lenges and open issues,

    M. R. Rezaee, N. A. W. A. Hamid, M. Hussin, and Z. A. Zukarnain, “Comprehensive review of drones collision avoidance schemes: Chal- lenges and open issues,”IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 25, no. 7, pp. 6397–6426, 2024

    2024

  2. [10]

    Comprehensive review of drones collision avoidance schemes: Challenges and open issues,

    ——, “Comprehensive review of drones collision avoidance schemes: Challenges and open issues,”IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Trans- portation Systems, vol. 25, no. 7, pp. 6397–6426, 2024

    2024

  3. [11]

    Conflict detection and resolution method for cooperating unmanned aerial vehicles,

    R. Conde, D. Alejo, J. A. Cobano, A. Viguria, and A. Ollero, “Conflict detection and resolution method for cooperating unmanned aerial vehicles,”Journal of Intelligent &; Robotic Systems, vol. 65, no. 1-4, p. 495–505, Aug. 2011. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ ...

    2011

  4. [12]

    A real-time collision avoidance strategy in dynamic airspace based on dynamic artificial potential field algorithm,

    Y . Du, X. Zhang, and Z. Nie, “A real-time collision avoidance strategy in dynamic airspace based on dynamic artificial potential field algorithm,” IEEE Access, vol. 7, pp. 169 469–169 479, 2019

    2019

  5. [13]

    Real-time trajectory generation for collision avoidance with obstacle uncertainty,

    C. K. Lai and J. Whidborne, “Real-time trajectory generation for collision avoidance with obstacle uncertainty,” inAIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Jun. 2011. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10. 2514/...

    2011

  6. [14]

    Real-time drone anti- collision avoidance systems: an edge artificial intelligence application,

    I. Lahsen-Cherif, H. Liu, and C. Lamy-Bergot, “Real-time drone anti- collision avoidance systems: an edge artificial intelligence application,” in2022 IEEE Radar Conference (RadarConf22), 2022, pp. 1–6

    2022

  7. [15]

    Ensuring uav safety: A vision-only and real-time framework for collision avoidance through object detection, tracking, and distance estimation,

    V . Karampinis, A. Arsenos, O. Filippopoulos, E. Petrongonas, C. Skliros, D. Kollias, S. Kollias, and A. V oulodimos, “Ensuring uav safety: A vision-only and real-time framework for collision avoidance through object detection, tracking, and distance estimation,” 2024. [Online...

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Reactive col- lision avoidance for safe agile navigation,

    A. Saviolo, N. Picello, J. Mao, R. Verma, and G. Loianno, “Reactive col- lision avoidance for safe agile navigation,” in2025 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2025, pp. 16 125– 16 132

    2025

  9. [17]

    Real-time directed rapidly exploring random tree path planning for air collision avoidance,

    M. Lee, G. Noh, J. Park, and D. Lee, “Real-time directed rapidly exploring random tree path planning for air collision avoidance,” Journal of Aerospace Information Systems, vol. 19, no. 5, p. 330–343, May 2022. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.2514/1.I011016

    2022 doi

  10. [18]

    Sampling-based path planning for uav collision avoidance,

    Y . Lin and S. Saripalli, “Sampling-based path planning for uav collision avoidance,”IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 18, no. 11, pp. 3179–3192, 2017

    2017

  11. [19]

    Probabilistically safe motion planning to avoid dynamic obstacles with uncertain motion patterns,

    G. S. Aoude, B. D. Luders, J. M. Joseph, N. Roy, and J. P. How, “Probabilistically safe motion planning to avoid dynamic obstacles with uncertain motion patterns,”Autonomous Robots, vol. 35, no. 1, p. 51–76, May 2013. [Online]. Available: http: //dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10514-013-9334-3

    2013 doi

  12. [20]

    3d path planning and real-time collision resolution of multirotor drone operations in complex urban low-altitude airspace,

    N. Zhang, M. Zhang, and K. H. Low, “3d path planning and real-time collision resolution of multirotor drone operations in complex urban low-altitude airspace,”Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, vol. 129, p. 103123, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.sci...

    2021

  13. [21]

    A fast markov decision process- based algorithm for collision avoidance in urban air mobility,

    J. Bertram, P. Wei, and J. Zambreno, “A fast markov decision process- based algorithm for collision avoidance in urban air mobility,”IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 23, no. 9, pp. 15 420–15 433, 2022

    2022

  14. [22]

    Real-time traffic simulation and management for large-scale urban air mobility: Integrating route guidance and collision avoidance,

    C. Weng, C. Chen, J. Tan, T. Pan, and R. Zhong, “Real-time traffic simulation and management for large-scale urban air mobility: Integrating route guidance and collision avoidance,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.01235

    2025 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Reciprocal velocity obsta- cles for real-time multi-agent navigation,

    J. Van den Berg, M. Lin, and D. Manocha, “Reciprocal velocity obsta- cles for real-time multi-agent navigation,” in2008 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation. Ieee, 2008, pp. 1928–1935

    2008

  16. [24]

    Reciprocal velocity obstacle spatial-temporal network for distributed multirobot navigation,

    L. Chen, Y . Wang, Z. Miao, M. Feng, Z. Zhou, H. Wang, and D. Wang, “Reciprocal velocity obstacle spatial-temporal network for distributed multirobot navigation,”IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 71, no. 11, pp. 14 470–14 480, 2024

    2024

  17. [25]

    Reciprocal n- body collision avoidance,

    J. Van Den Berg, S. J. Guy, M. Lin, and D. Manocha, “Reciprocal n- body collision avoidance,” inRobotics research: the 14th international symposium ISRR. Springer, 2011, pp. 3–19

    2011

  18. [26]

    Online trajectory generation with distributed model predictive control for multi-robot motion planning,

    C. E. Luis, M. Vukosavljev, and A. P. Schoellig, “Online trajectory generation with distributed model predictive control for multi-robot motion planning,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 604–611, 2020

    2020

  19. [27]

    Dynamic control barrier function-based model predictive control to safety-critical obstacle-avoidance of mobile robot,

    Z. Jian, Z. Yan, X. Lei, Z. Lu, B. Lan, X. Wang, and B. Liang, “Dynamic control barrier function-based model predictive control to safety-critical obstacle-avoidance of mobile robot,” in2023 IEEE International Con- ference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2023, pp. 3679–3685

    2023

  20. [28]

    A tcas-ii resolution advisory detection algorithm,

    C. Munoz, A. Narkawicz, and J. Chamberlain, “A tcas-ii resolution advisory detection algorithm,” inAIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control (GNC) Conference. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Aug. 2013. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.2514/ 6.2013-4622

    2013

  21. [29]

    Optimizing the next generation collision avoidance system for safe, suitable, and acceptable operational performance,

    J. E. Holland, M. J. Kochenderfer, and W. A. Olson, “Optimizing the next generation collision avoidance system for safe, suitable, and acceptable operational performance,”Air Traffic Control Quarterly, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 275–297, 2013

    2013

  22. [30]

    Uncertainty- aware reinforcement learning for collision avoidance,

    G. Kahn, A. Villaflor, V . Pong, P. Abbeel, and S. Levine, “Uncertainty- aware reinforcement learning for collision avoidance,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1702.01182, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Efficient unmanned aerial systems navigation with collision avoidance in dense urban environments,

    J. Bertram, J. Zambreno, and P. Wei, “Efficient unmanned aerial systems navigation with collision avoidance in dense urban environments,”IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 24, no. 8, pp. 8163–8173, 2023. [32]Minimum Operational Performance Standards ...

    2023

  24. [33]

    Decentralized robust collision-avoidance for cooperative multirobot systems: A gaussian process-based control barrier function approach,

    Y . Hu, J. Fu, and G. Wen, “Decentralized robust collision-avoidance for cooperative multirobot systems: A gaussian process-based control barrier function approach,”IEEE Transactions on Control of Network Systems, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 706–717, 2022

    2022

  25. [34]

    Decentralized model predictive control of cooperating uavs,

    A. Richards and J. How, “Decentralized model predictive control of cooperating uavs,” in2004 43rd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC)(IEEE Cat. No. 04CH37601), vol. 4. IEEE, 2004, pp. 4286–4291

    2004

  26. [35]

    Decentralized model predictive control,

    A. Bemporad and D. Barcelli, “Decentralized model predictive control,” Networked control systems, pp. 149–178, 2010

    2010

  27. [36]

    Airspace-aware contingency landing planning,

    H. E. Tekaslan and E. M. Atkins, “Airspace-aware contingency landing planning,” 2026. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.07074

    2026

  28. [37]

    Gradient-Guided Search for Autonomous Contingency Landing Planning,

    ——, “Gradient-Guided Search for Autonomous Contingency Landing Planning,”Drones, vol. 9, no. 9, 2025

    2025

  29. [38]

    Airspeed forward-invariance for unpowered fixed-wing aircraft,

    ——, “Airspeed forward-invariance for unpowered fixed-wing aircraft,”

  30. [39]

    Feasibility assurance for search-based emergency landings,

    H. E. Tekaslan and E. Atkins, “Feasibility assurance for search-based emergency landings,” inAIAA SciTech 2026 Forum, 2026

    2026

  31. [40]

    Department of defense world geodetic system 1984, its definition and relationships with local geodetic sys- tems,

    N. Imagery and M. A. (NIMA), “Department of defense world geodetic system 1984, its definition and relationships with local geodetic sys- tems,” National Imagery and Mapping Agency, Bethesda, MD, Tech. Rep. TR8350.2, 2000

    1984

  32. [41]

    Defining well clear for unmanned aircraft systems,

    S. P. Cook, D. Brooks, R. Cole, D. Hackenberg, and V . Raska, “Defining well clear for unmanned aircraft systems,” inAIAA Infotech @ Aerospace. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Jan. 2015. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.2514/6.2015-0481

    2015 doi

  33. [42]

    Investigating detect-and-avoid surveillance performance for unmanned aircraft systems,

    C. Park, S. M. Lee, and E. R. Mueller, “Investigating detect-and-avoid surveillance performance for unmanned aircraft systems,” in14th AIAA Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operations Conference. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, June 2014. [Online]. Ava...

    2014 doi

  34. [43]

    Evaluating noncooperative detect-and-avoid well clear definitions with alerting performance and surveillance requirement,

    S. Lee, M. G. Wu, and A. C. Cone, “Evaluating noncooperative detect-and-avoid well clear definitions with alerting performance and surveillance requirement,”Journal of Air Transportation, vol. 29, no. 4, p. 171–183, Oct 2021. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.2514/1. D0246

    2021 doi

  35. [44]

    Cooperative multi-agent planning: A survey,

    A. Torre ˜no, E. Onaindia, A. Komenda, and M. ˇStolba, “Cooperative multi-agent planning: A survey,”ACM Comput. Surv., vol. 50, no. 6, Nov. 2017. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3128584

    2017 doi

  36. [45]

    Emergency Flight Planning Applied to Total Loss of Thrust,

    E. M. Atkins, I. A. Portillo, and M. J. Strube, “Emergency Flight Planning Applied to Total Loss of Thrust,”AIAA Journal of Aircraft, vol. 43, no. 4, pp. 1205–1216, 2006

    2006

  37. [46]

    On Curves of Minimal Length with a Constraint on Average Curvature, and with Prescribed Initial and Terminal Positions and Tangents,

    L. E. Dubins, “On Curves of Minimal Length with a Constraint on Average Curvature, and with Prescribed Initial and Terminal Positions and Tangents,”American Journal of Mathematics, vol. 79, no. 3, pp. 497–516, 1957

    1957

  38. [47]

    Bringing up OpenSky: A large-scale ADS-B sensor network for re- search,

    M. Sch ¨afer, M. Strohmeier, V . Lenders, I. Martinovic, and M. Wilhelm, “Bringing up OpenSky: A large-scale ADS-B sensor network for re- search,” inIPSN-14 Proceedings of the 13th International Symposium on Information Processing in Sensor Networks, 2014, pp. 83–94

    2014

  39. [48]

    Airworthiness Approval of Posi- tioning and Navigation Systems,

    Federal Aviation Administration, “Airworthiness Approval of Posi- tioning and Navigation Systems,” U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Advisory Circular AC 20-138D, Apr 2016

    2016

  40. [49]

    Airworthiness Approval of Automatic Dependent Surveillance– Broadcast OUT Systems,

    ——, “Airworthiness Approval of Automatic Dependent Surveillance– Broadcast OUT Systems,” U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Washington, DC, USA, Advisory Circular AC 20-165B, Dec. 2015

    2015

  41. [50]

    Nasa langley’s airstar testbed: A subscale flight test capability for flight dynamics and control system experiments,

    T. Jordan and R. Bailey, “Nasa langley’s airstar testbed: A subscale flight test capability for flight dynamics and control system experiments,” inAIAA Guidance, Navigation and Control Conference and Exhibit. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, June 2008. [Onli...

    2008 doi

  42. [51]

    Design of a flight envelope protection system for nasa’s transport class model,

    N. Tekles, J. Chongvisal, E. Xargay, R. Choe, D. A. Talleur, N. Hovakimyan, and C. M. Belcastro, “Design of a flight envelope protection system for nasa’s transport class model,”Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, vol. 40, no. 4, p. 863–877, Apr

  43. [52]

    Trajectory planning for contingency landing using optimal control,

    H. S. Kim and E. M. Atkins, “Trajectory planning for contingency landing using optimal control,” inIEEE American Control Conference (ACC), 2026

    2026

  44. [53]

    Toward uav control via cellular networks: Delay profiles, delay modeling, and a case study within the 5-mile range,

    J. Morales, G. Rodriguez, G. Huang, and D. Akopian, “Toward uav control via cellular networks: Delay profiles, delay modeling, and a case study within the 5-mile range,”IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, vol. 56, no. 5, pp. 4132–4151, 2020

    2020

  45. [54]

    Potential data link candidates for civilian unmanned aircraft systems: A survey,

    M. Zolanvari, R. Jain, and T. Salman, “Potential data link candidates for civilian unmanned aircraft systems: A survey,”IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 292–319, 2020

    2020

  46. [55]

    Detect-and-avoid closed- loop evaluation of noncooperative well clear definitions,

    M. G. Wu, S. Lee, C. C. Serres, B. Gill, M. W. M. Edwards, S. Smearcheck, T. Adami, and S. Calhoun, “Detect-and-avoid closed- loop evaluation of noncooperative well clear definitions,”Journal of Air Transportation, vol. 28, no. 4, p. 195–206, Oct. 2020. [Online]. Available: ht...

    2020 doi

  47. [2017]

    Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.2514/1.G001728

    [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.2514/1.G001728

    doi

  48. [2026]

    Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.22860

    [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.22860

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.