pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.21771 · v1 · pith:E4IDJGV2new · submitted 2026-05-20 · 📡 eess.SY · cs.MA· cs.SY

Secure Coordination for Vertiport Sequencing in Advanced Air Mobility

Jaehan Im , Filippos Fotiadis , Ufuk Topcu , David Fridovich-Keil This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-22 08:26 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 📡 eess.SY cs.MAcs.SY
keywords vertiport sequencingsecure coordinationrobust optimizationsensing uncertaintyadvanced air mobilitymisreportingspoofingRemote-ID
0
0 comments X

The pith

Sequencing decisions for vertiports stay separation-feasible when cast as a robust design problem over the surveillance-consistent uncertainty region, even if vehicles strategically misreport arrival times or malicious actors spoof data.

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

The paper establishes that a coordinator can combine Remote-ID self-reports with uncertain surveillance measurements to produce safe arrival schedules at vertiports. It models self-interested vehicles as strategic misreporters seeking better priority and malicious actors as adversaries trying to degrade overall performance. By formulating the sequencing task as a robust optimization over the set of all reports consistent with the surveillance uncertainty region, the approach guarantees that the assigned schedule remains feasible under any possible true state inside that region. A sympathetic reader cares because advanced air mobility will involve dense, low-altitude traffic where relying on unverified self-reports risks collisions or unnecessary delays, and external sensing alone leaves ambiguity that must be handled explicitly.

Core claim

The paper claims that sequencing decisions remain separation-feasible when formulated as a robust design problem over the surveillance-consistent uncertainty region, even when self-interested vehicles strategically misreport or malicious actors spoof information. The coordinator checks reports against externally obtained surveillance measurements and rejects those lying outside the characterized uncertainty set while treating all reports inside the set as possible truths. Self-interested misreporting is modeled as a strategic deviation that improves the reporting vehicle's own outcome, and malicious spoofing is modeled as an adversarial disturbance; the robust formulation protects against a

What carries the argument

The robust design problem over the surveillance-consistent uncertainty region: it treats all reports inside the uncertainty set as possible and produces a single schedule that satisfies separation constraints for every possible true state in the set.

Load-bearing premise

The surveillance system must produce a well-characterized uncertainty region such that any falsified report outside it can be rejected while reports inside it cannot be distinguished from truth.

What would settle it

Run a representative vertiport scenario with a spoofed arrival report placed inside the surveillance uncertainty region and measure whether the robust schedule still satisfies all separation constraints while a non-robust schedule based on the reported time violates at least one.

read the original abstract

Advanced air mobility operations will require reliable coordination mechanisms for managing dense traffic near vertiports. However, sequencing decisions may become vulnerable when they rely on potentially falsified self-reported information such as estimated time of arrival. Self-interested vehicles may misreport their arrival times to obtain favorable landing priority, while malicious actors may spoof information to disrupt sequencing decisions or induce unnecessary congestion. This paper studies secure coordination for vertiport sequencing under sensing uncertainty. We consider a coordinator that combines self-reported Remote-ID information with externally obtained surveillance measurements to check reports and assign separation-feasible arrival schedules. Since surveillance-based estimates are uncertain, falsified reports may remain consistent with the sensing uncertainty region and cannot always be rejected outright. We therefore formulate sequencing as a robust design problem over this uncertainty region. Self-interested misreporting is modeled as a strategic deviation that improves the reporting vehicle's own sequencing outcome, whereas malicious spoofing is modeled as an adversarial disturbance that degrades the system-level objective. The final paper will develop robust sequencing rules over surveillance-consistent uncertainty sets and evaluate their performance in representative vertiport sequencing scenarios.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. This paper addresses secure coordination for vertiport sequencing in Advanced Air Mobility operations. It identifies vulnerabilities arising from potentially falsified self-reported information such as estimated times of arrival and proposes combining Remote-ID data with external surveillance measurements. Sequencing is formulated as a robust design problem over the surveillance-consistent uncertainty region, with self-interested misreporting modeled as strategic deviation improving the reporter's outcome and malicious spoofing modeled as adversarial disturbance. The manuscript states that the final paper will develop the robust sequencing rules and evaluate performance in representative scenarios.

Significance. A successfully executed robust formulation that preserves separation feasibility under uncertainty and both strategic and adversarial behaviors would represent a meaningful contribution to secure traffic management in dense AAM environments. The integration of surveillance uncertainty with game-theoretic modeling of misreporting is conceptually relevant to systems and control applications in aviation. However, because the manuscript provides only a high-level description and explicitly defers all derivations, uncertainty-set constructions, and evaluations, the significance remains prospective rather than demonstrated.

major comments (2)
  1. Abstract: The central claim that 'sequencing decisions remain separation-feasible when formulated as a robust design problem over the surveillance-consistent uncertainty region, even when self-interested vehicles strategically misreport or malicious actors spoof information' is presented without any supporting derivation, explicit uncertainty-set construction from Remote-ID and surveillance fusion, robust optimization program, or feasibility argument. The text states only that the final paper will develop these elements, leaving the claim unevaluated.
  2. Abstract: The modeling of self-interested misreporting as a strategic deviation that improves the reporting vehicle's sequencing outcome and malicious spoofing as an adversarial disturbance is described at a conceptual level but lacks any concrete mathematical formulation, improvement-to-outcome mapping, or argument establishing that the resulting schedule satisfies separation constraints for all reports inside the uncertainty region.
minor comments (1)
  1. The manuscript would benefit from a brief related-work paragraph situating the proposed robust formulation relative to existing work on secure air-traffic coordination and robust optimization under sensing uncertainty.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback and for recognizing the conceptual relevance of integrating surveillance uncertainty with game-theoretic modeling of misreporting. We agree that the current manuscript is high-level and will revise it to include sketches of the key mathematical elements while preserving the extended-abstract format.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Abstract: The central claim that 'sequencing decisions remain separation-feasible when formulated as a robust design problem over the surveillance-consistent uncertainty region, even when self-interested vehicles strategically misreport or malicious actors spoof information' is presented without any supporting derivation, explicit uncertainty-set construction from Remote-ID and surveillance fusion, robust optimization program, or feasibility argument. The text states only that the final paper will develop these elements, leaving the claim unevaluated.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the abstract states the central claim at a conceptual level. The manuscript is structured as an extended abstract that outlines the problem and defers full technical development to the complete paper. In revision we will add a concise paragraph sketching the surveillance-consistent uncertainty set obtained by fusing Remote-ID reports with external measurements, the robust optimization program that selects separation-feasible schedules, and a high-level argument that feasibility is preserved for every report inside the uncertainty region. Detailed derivations and numerical evaluations will remain for the full version. revision: yes

  2. Referee: Abstract: The modeling of self-interested misreporting as a strategic deviation that improves the reporting vehicle's sequencing outcome and malicious spoofing as an adversarial disturbance is described at a conceptual level but lacks any concrete mathematical formulation, improvement-to-outcome mapping, or argument establishing that the resulting schedule satisfies separation constraints for all reports inside the uncertainty region.

    Authors: We agree that the current text describes these behaviors only conceptually. In the revised manuscript we will introduce explicit notation: let r_i denote the reported arrival time of vehicle i; a strategic deviation is a choice r_i' such that the resulting schedule improves i's priority or reduces its delay relative to truthful reporting, while remaining inside the surveillance uncertainty set. Malicious spoofing is modeled as an additive adversarial perturbation within the same set that worsens the system-wide objective. We will state that the robust sequencing rule selects a schedule feasible for every point in the uncertainty set, thereby guaranteeing separation even under these behaviors. Full proofs of the mapping and constraint satisfaction will be developed in the complete paper. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No derivation or equations presented; claims remain forward-looking statements without load-bearing reductions.

full rationale

The manuscript functions as a research outline rather than a completed technical derivation. It explicitly defers development to 'the final paper' and provides no equations, no explicit construction of the surveillance-consistent uncertainty region, no robust optimization formulation, and no feasibility arguments. Absent any mathematical steps, fitted parameters, or self-referential definitions, none of the enumerated circularity patterns (self-definitional, fitted-input prediction, self-citation load-bearing, etc.) can be exhibited. The central claim is therefore not reducible to its own inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The approach rests on standard domain assumptions about uncertainty sets in robust optimization; no free parameters or new entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Surveillance measurements define a known uncertainty region that contains the true arrival time and can be used to validate or reject self-reports.
    Invoked when stating that falsified reports may remain consistent with the sensing uncertainty region.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5734 in / 1228 out tokens · 42159 ms · 2026-05-22T08:26:27.176441+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

19 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Pilot-Controller Communications (OGHFA BN) , year =

    work page

  2. [2]

    Low fuel event involving a Boeing 737, Sydney Airport, New South Wales, 13 January 2024 (Occurrence brief AB-2024-001) , year =

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    14th Conference on Aviation, Range, and Aerospace Meteorology , year=

    Traffic management advisor (TMA) weather integration , author=. 14th Conference on Aviation, Range, and Aerospace Meteorology , year=

    work page

  4. [4]

    Network Manager, Brussels , year=

    Environmental Assessment: European ATM Network Fuel Inefficiency Study , author=. Network Manager, Brussels , year=

    work page

  5. [5]

    Journal of Air Transport Management , volume=

    Horizontal approach flight efficiency and emissions at the lower airspace , author=. Journal of Air Transport Management , volume=. 2026 , publisher=

    work page 2026

  6. [6]

    2024 IEEE 21st Consumer Communications & Networking Conference (CCNC) , pages=

    Ghostbuster: Detecting misbehaving remote id-enabled drones , author=. 2024 IEEE 21st Consumer Communications & Networking Conference (CCNC) , pages=. 2024 , organization=

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Dahle and Neils Koroma and Robert E

    Bryce Bjorkman and Stanley Zheng and Austin Coursey and Cailani Lemieux-Mack and Samuel Gonzalez and Abel Diaz-Gonzalez and Noah W. Dahle and Neils Koroma and Robert E. Canady and Xenofon Koutsoukos and Gautam Biswas and Abenezer Taye and Bryan Ward , title =. AIAA SCITECH 2026 Forum , year =

    work page 2026

  8. [8]

    2024 , note =

    Aeronautical Information Manual, Chapter 4, Section 5: Surveillance Systems , howpublished =. 2024 , note =

    work page 2024

  9. [9]

    1997 , month = mar, address =

    work page 1997

  10. [10]

    Lincoln Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology: Lexington, MA, USA , year=

    Secondary Surveillance Phased Array Radar (SSPAR): Initial Feasibility Study , author=. Lincoln Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology: Lexington, MA, USA , year=

    work page

  11. [11]

    W., Koroma, N., Canady, R

    Bjorkman, B., Zheng, S., Coursey, A., Lemieux-Mack, C., Gonzalez, S., Diaz-Gonzalez, A., Dahle, N. W., Koroma, N., Canady, R. E., Koutsoukos, X., Biswas, G., Taye, A., and Ward, B., Remote ID Spoofing Attacks and Defenses, 2026. doi:10.2514/6.2026-2665

    work page doi:10.2514/6.2026-2665 2026

  12. [12]

    324--332

    Keizer, M., Sciancalepore, S., and Oligeri, G., Ghostbuster: Detecting misbehaving remote id-enabled drones, 2024 IEEE 21st Consumer Communications & Networking Conference (CCNC), IEEE, 2024, pp. 324--332

    work page 2024

  13. [13]

    ://skybrary.aero/articles/pilot-controller-communications-oghfa-bn, sKYbrary Aviation Safety, accessed 2026-05-19

    SKYbrary , Pilot-Controller Communications (OGHFA BN), , 2022. ://skybrary.aero/articles/pilot-controller-communications-oghfa-bn, sKYbrary Aviation Safety, accessed 2026-05-19

    work page 2022

  14. [14]

    Eurocontrol, Environmental Assessment: European ATM Network Fuel Inefficiency Study, Network Manager, Brussels, 2020

    work page 2020

  15. [15]

    132, 2026, p

    Hirte, G., Jaekel, J., and Niemeier, H.-M., Horizontal approach flight efficiency and emissions at the lower airspace, Journal of Air Transport Management, Vol. 132, 2026, p. 102936

    work page 2026

  16. [16]

    D., and Evans, J

    Robinson, M., Reynolds, H. D., and Evans, J. E., Traffic management advisor (TMA) weather integration, 14th Conference on Aviation, Range, and Aerospace Meteorology, 2010

    work page 2010

  17. [17]

    Accessed 2026-05-19

    Federal Aviation Administration , Aeronautical Information Manual, Chapter 4, Section 5: Surveillance Systems, https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim_html/chap4_section_5.html, 2024. Accessed 2026-05-19

    work page 2024

  18. [18]

    Eurocontrol , Eurocontrol Standard for Radar Surveillance in En-Route Airspace and Major Terminal Areas , Tech. Rep. SUR.ET1.ST01.1000-STD-01-01, European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation, Brussels, Belgium, Mar. 1997

    work page 1997

  19. [19]

    Weber, M., Wood, M., Franz, J., Conway, D., and Cho, J., Secondary Surveillance Phased Array Radar (SSPAR): Initial Feasibility Study, Lincoln Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology: Lexington, MA, USA, 2014

    work page 2014