Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

When Uncertainty Leads to Unsafety: Empirical Insights into the Role of Uncertainty in Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Safety

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 Erratic, indecisive control signals reliably precede safety violations in autonomous drone flights, and a black-box autoencoder reading only the drone's heading angle can detect that uncertainty early enough to act.

desk verdict Genuinely useful dataset and a 50-second early-warning result, but the headline odds are flight-level co-occurrences dressed up as decision-level probabilities. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.08908 v2 pith:EHXSXSVO submitted 2025-01-15 cs.SE cs.RO

Sajad Khatiri , Fatemeh Mohammadi Amin , Sebastiano Panichella , Paolo Tonella This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.SEcs.RO
keywords decisionuncertaintyUAVsafetyobstacleavoidanceautoencoderanomalydetectionruntimemonitoringPX4-Autopilotsimulation-basedtestingunsafetyprediction
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 aims to establish that the "decision uncertainty" of an autonomous drone—erratic, hesitant, or contradictory control signals—is a measurable early warning of unsafe flight, and that a runtime monitor can exploit it. On a dataset of over 5,000 simulated PX4-Autopilot flights, it reports that up to 89% of unsafe states are preceded by significant uncertainty, and up to 74% of uncertain decision episodes end in an unsafe state. Because these correlations are substantial but imperfect, the paper positions uncertainty monitoring as a viable flight supervisor rather than a perfect predictor: its Superialist detector raises the first warning on average 50.2 seconds before the drone reaches a critical one-meter distance to obstacles, at up to 96% precision and 93% recall for detecting uncertainty. The paper also documents the limitation that 11-36% of unsafe flights show no prior uncertainty, which bounds the ceiling of any uncertainty-only safety predictor.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing concept is "Decision Uncertainty", defined operationally as the likelihood that the autonomous controller emits inconsistent, unsteady, or contradicting movement instructions within a short period; its visible symptom in this study is erratic, frequent change in the drone's heading angle. The detector Superialist is a convolutional autoencoder that reconstructs 5-second windows of the zero-centered heading angle with 2.5-second overlap and flags a window as uncertain when the mean reconstruction loss over four consecutive windows exceeds a threshold empirically set at 0.3. The heading angle carries the argument because the case-study drone has a single forward-facing camera, so rotational searching is its behavioral signature of uncertainty; position coordinates were excluded because they made the model overfit.

What would settle it

Re-run the evaluation with window-level annotations: have validators mark which specific 5-second segments of each flight are genuinely erratic, then recompute Superialist's precision and recall against those window labels. If the currently reported 96% precision and 93% recall shrink substantially, the performance claim rests on the flight-level labeling assumption rather than on the detector's actual discrimination.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that behavioral control uncertainty, defined as inconsistent, unsteady, or contradicting movement instructions, empirically correlates with flight unsafety in a large simulation-based study. Across two labeled datasets, the conditional probability that an uncertain decision leads to an unsafe state ranges from 50% to 74%, and the probability that an unsafe state was preceded by uncertainty ranges from 64% to 89%, with overall agreement between safety and certainty labels of roughly 87-89%. The paper then demonstrates that a convolutional autoencoder trained only on the zero-centered heading angle of the safe waypoints—a single black-box signal—detects uncertain behavior with up to 96% precision and 93% recall, raising its first alarm on average 50.2 seconds before the drone enters the critical zone. When the same detector is used to predict unsafety directly, performance falls to up to 74% precision and 87% recall, exactly the degradation the correlation analysis predicts.

Load-bearing premise

The evaluation assumes that human labels assigned to whole flights ('uncertain' or 'unsafe') apply unchanged to every 5-second window within those flights, even though the annotators never labeled individual windows.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A minimum of roughly 50 seconds of warning before a drone enters a 1-meter critical zone gives a remote pilot or an automated self-healing controller a practical reaction window in the simulated scenarios studied.
  • Because 26-50% of uncertain decisions do not end in unsafe states, an uncertainty-based supervisor will necessarily produce false alarms relative to unsafety, and the system must be designed to tolerate them.
  • Because 11-36% of unsafe states occur without prior uncertainty, no uncertainty-only monitor can fully guarantee safety; the paper concludes that white-box or gray-box indicators must be added for a more reliable supervisor.
  • The measured conditional probabilities place hard upper bounds on any uncertainty-only unsafety predictor: at most 74% precision and at most 89% recall in these datasets.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The striking effectiveness of the heading-only signal is plausibly specific to monocular-camera drones, where rotational searching is the visible sign of indecision; drones with 360-degree sensing might express uncertainty in translational or speed changes instead, so the detector may need different input features to transfer.
  • The 50-second lead time suggests a concrete deployment pattern that the paper sketches but does not test: uncertainty alarms trigger a handoff to a human pilot or a slowdown and replanning mode, with warnings treated as advisory rather than as crash predictions.
  • A testable follow-up is to combine heading-angle uncertainty with the count of trajectory recomputations inside the avoidance planner; if that closes part of the 11-36% gap of "certain but unsafe" flights, it would corroborate the paper's call for gray-box monitors.
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 investigates the relationship between behavioral 'decision uncertainty' of UAVs (operationalized as erratic or inconsistent heading/control-signal patterns) and flight safety in simulated PX4-Autopilot flights. The authors generate about 5,000 simulated flights with a modified Surrealist test generator, manually label a subset at flight level as safe/unsafe and certain/uncertain, and report conditional probabilities between these labels (e.g., up to 89% of unsafe flights exhibit uncertainty, up to 74% of uncertain flights become unsafe). They then propose Superialist, a convolutional autoencoder that detects uncertainty from the heading-angle time series, reporting high precision/recall for uncertainty detection and moderate performance for early unsafety prediction, with warnings issued tens of seconds before obstacle encounters. The paper includes two datasets (a new one and an existing one) and a replication package.

Significance. If the findings hold at the decision/time-window level, this work would be a useful contribution to runtime safety monitoring for autonomous UAVs: it would provide a lightweight, black-box uncertainty signal that can trigger early intervention, and it offers a large public dataset and reproducible pipeline. The paper is honest about the limits of uncertainty as a predictor of unsafety (Findings 3 and 4, Section 5.3), and it uses Wilson confidence intervals and an out-of-distribution test set (test2_ds) to support the correlation analysis. The replication package and the use of a popular open-source autopilot increase the practical relevance. However, the central empirical claims are currently stated at the decision level while being computed at the flight level, and the windowed evaluation inherits flight-level labels, so the headline percentages and the detector evaluation are not yet fully supported. The autoencoder results are still indicative, but the magnitude of the reported precision/recall is likely inflated by the label-propagation issue.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 5.1, Table 2 and Table 3] Findings 1 and 2 are stated as decision-level probabilities ('uncertain UAV decisions lead to unsafe states', 'unsafe states exhibit significant decision uncertainty'), but Table 2 is a confusion matrix over whole flights. Section 4.1.2 labels an entire flight 'uncertain' if erratic behavior appears 'in a certain segment' and 'unsafe' if any part violates the safety criteria. Thus p(unsafe|uncertain) and p(uncertain|unsafe) are flight-level co-occurrence rates: they count flights that contain at least one uncertain segment and at least one unsafe segment, regardless of whether the uncertain segment precedes or coincides with the unsafe one. The 11-36% of unsafe states 'without uncertainty' may simply mean the labeler saw no erratic segment anywhere in the flight, not that the specific unsafe segment lacked prior uncertainty. The abstract and Section 1 therefore overstate the link between uncertain decisions and unsafe states. Please rephrase the findings at flight level, or re-annotate at segment/window level to support the decision-level claim.
  2. [Section 4.2.1, windowed dataset and Tables 4-5] The windowed dataset inherits the flight-level Safety and Certainty labels: each 5-second window receives the label of the whole flight. Superialist is then evaluated by comparing window-level predictions with these propagated labels. In an 'uncertain, unsafe' flight, windows in the long non-erratic, non-risky portions are counted as true positives for uncertainty detection and as true positives for unsafety prediction whenever the model flags them. This can artificially inflate both precision and recall, because false alarms in normal segments of a flight labeled 'uncertain' or 'unsafe' are never counted as false positives. The reported 95.8-96.7% accuracy and 84-93% recall in Table 5 are therefore upper bounds under optimistic label assignment. A per-window labeling protocol, or at least a sensitivity analysis using only windows near manually identified erratic/unsafe segments, is needed to support the RQ2 and RQ3 evaluation.
  3. [Section 5.2, threshold and architectural choices] Several key hyperparameters are selected empirically on the same data used for evaluation: the reconstruction loss threshold theta=0.3 is set from the training histogram (Figure 7), the window length (5s) and overlap (2.5s) are 'decided empirically', the mean-loss averaging count n=4 is chosen to reduce false positives, and the training filter (>3m in the next 50s) is derived from observed safe distances. The manuscript does not report any sensitivity analysis or nested/held-out selection for these choices. Since the evaluation datasets are not independent of these choices, the reported precision/recall values may be optimistically biased. Please add a sensitivity analysis over threshold, window length, and n, or state clearly which choices were fixed before seeing the test labels.
  4. [Section 4.1.2 and Section 2.2.1] There is a partial circularity between the manual 'uncertain' ground truth and the autoencoder input. The uncertainty label is defined operationally as 'erratic or inconsistent movements' (Section 4.1.2), and the autoencoder is fed only the heading-angle signal (Section 4.2.1), which is described as the most reliable indicator of uncertainty. Consequently, the high detection accuracy partly reflects that the label and the feature are the same observable. This does not invalidate the practical utility of a heading-based monitor, but it weakens the claim that Superialist detects 'decision uncertainty' as an independent construct. At minimum, state that the detector is tuned to reproduce the manual annotation criterion, and report how often the autoencoder disagrees with human labels on flights that are labeled certain but show brief heading changes (e.g., intentional turns).
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 5.1] The disagreement rate between validators is reported as 10.5% and 6.5%, but no inter-rater reliability statistic (e.g., Cohen's kappa or Fleiss' kappa) is given. Please report the agreement measure used to support the 'majority voting' procedure.
  2. [Section 3.3] The text contains a typo: 'completely back-box' should be 'completely black-box'. Please correct it.
  3. [Section 4.1.2] The sentence 'An Uncertain Label is used when the UAV shows erratic or inconsistent movements in a certain segment of the flight path' is ambiguous because 'a certain segment' could mean 'a specific segment' or 'a guaranteed segment'. Reword to avoid confusion.
  4. [Abstract and Section 5.3] The abstract states the first warning is raised 'up to 50 seconds in advance', while Section 5.3 gives averages of 50.2s and 42.4s for the two datasets. The abstract phrasing suggests a maximum; please state that these are averages to avoid overclaiming.
  5. [Section 4.2.2] The acronym 'Superialist' is spelled as 'SUPERIALIST' in Section 3.1 and as 'Superialist' elsewhere. Please use a single consistent spelling throughout.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the safety–uncertainty correlation is empirical, though flight-level label propagation creates validity concerns.

full rationale

The paper’s central derivation is self-contained rather than circular. For RQ1, Safety labels are assigned from obstacle distance and collision risk (Section 4.1.2), while Certainty labels are assigned from erratic or inconsistent movement (Section 4.1.2); these are distinct operational observables, so the reported co-occurrence and conditional probabilities in Table 3 are empirical rather than true-by-definition. The Superialist evaluation (RQ2/RQ3) uses human certainty labels as ground truth and autoencoder reconstruction error on the heading signal as the detector; although the label and the feature both concern movement consistency, the labels are not derived from the detector output, so the high precision and recall are measured results, not construction artifacts. The self-citations to Surrealist and the 1.5m safety threshold are tool and parameter choices supported by the cited prior work and by publicly available replication data; they do not carry the burden of proving the uncertainty–safety relation. The main caveats are non-circular validity threats: the windowed dataset propagates flight-level Safety and Certainty labels to every 5-second window (Section 4.2.1), which can inflate RQ2/RQ3 metrics, and Findings 1–2 phrase flight-level proportions as if they were decision-level probabilities. Neither issue makes an output equal to an input by construction, so no specific circular step is established.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central claims rest on several empirically chosen parameters and on the validity of manual labels and simulation fidelity; these are the main assumptions a reader must accept.

free parameters (6)
  • reconstruction_loss_threshold = 0.3
    Chosen by inspecting the histogram of reconstruction losses on nominal training data (Section 4.2.2); a lower threshold raises false positives, and no cross-validation is reported.
  • window_length_and_overlap = 5 seconds with 2.5 second overlap
    Decided empirically after experiments with window lengths from 2.5 up to 20 seconds (Section 4.2.1).
  • mean_loss_window_count_n = 4
    Number of consecutive windows averaged to smooth reconstruction loss; chosen to reduce false positives without formal selection (Section 4.2.2).
  • MAX_DTW = 65
    Threshold in the distance metric for test generation; if average DTW exceeds this value, the search penalizes non-determinism; determined empirically (Eq. 1, Section 4.1.1).
  • training_data_filter_distance_and_horizon = distance > 3m within next 50 seconds
    Windows meeting this criterion are treated as nominal for training; chosen based on the observation that the drone stays beyond 3.5m when unchallenged (Section 4.2.2).
  • safety_label_thresholds = unsafe if <1m or 1-3m with risky path
    Manual labeling rule adopted by the authors; the 1.5m fixed threshold from prior work was found insufficient (Section 4.1.2).
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Gazebo and PX4 simulation behavior is representative enough of real UAV flights for safety conclusions.
    External validity threat acknowledged in Section 5.5.2; all results are simulation-based.
  • domain assumption Human majority-vote labels are correct ground truth for safety and certainty.
    Section 4.1.2: three validators labeled flights, with 6.5% to 10.5% disagreement; majority voting was used.
  • ad hoc to paper Erratic heading-angle changes are a sufficient black-box proxy for decision uncertainty.
    Section 4.2.1: the heading angle of the drone is claimed to be the most reliable source of information; this operationalization is specific to the single-camera drone and is not derived from first principles.
  • domain assumption The 1.5m safe distance threshold from prior work applies to this drone configuration.
    Section 2.2.2 inherits this from previous work [45]; the paper later replaces it with manual labels.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of When Uncertainty Leads to Unsafety: Empirical Insights into the Role of Uncertainty in Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Safety." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EHXSXSVO

@misc{pith2026250108908,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: When Uncertainty Leads to Unsafety: Empirical Insights into the Role of Uncertainty in Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Safety},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EHXSXSVO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.08908}
}
read the original abstract

Despite the recent developments in obstacle avoidance and other safety features, autonomous Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) continue to face safety challenges. No previous work investigated the relationship between the behavioral uncertainty of a UAV, characterized in this work by inconsistent or erratic control signal patterns, and the unsafety of its flight. By quantifying uncertainty, it is possible to develop a predictor for unsafety, which acts as a flight supervisor. We conducted a large-scale empirical investigation of safety violations using PX4-Autopilot, an open-source UAV software platform. Our dataset of over 5,000 simulated flights, created to challenge obstacle avoidance, allowed us to explore the relation between uncertain UAV decisions and safety violations: up to 89% of unsafe UAV states exhibit significant decision uncertainty, and up to 74% of uncertain decisions lead to unsafe states. Based on these findings, we implemented Superialist (Supervising Autonomous Aerial Vehicles), a runtime uncertainty detector based on autoencoders, the state-of-the-art technology for anomaly detection. Superialist achieved high performance in detecting uncertain behaviors with up to 96% precision and 93% recall. Despite the observed performance degradation when using the same approach for predicting unsafety (up to 74% precision and 87% recall), Superialist enabled early prediction of unsafe states up to 50 seconds in advance.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.08908 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Examples of flight safety and certainly levels [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. PX4 Platform Architecture through obstacles iteratively. This functionality is crucial for UAVs to au￾tonomously navigate complex environments, ensuring their safety and precise mission execution. 2.1.3 Flight Logs PX4 logs all communication between the RC/GCS and UAVs, as well as in￾ternal communication between UAV modules, including sensor outputs, GPS data, runtime commands, motor control signals, mission points,… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The control signals (waypoints) that the drone is instructed to follow [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Seed test cases (top) and their sample generated tests (bottom) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Superialist’s Autoencoder Architecture 4.2.2 Runtime Uncertainty Detection We developed Superialist, a real-time uncertainty detection approach for UAVs, using an autoencoder3 to learn high-level control system behavior in an offline phase, enabling real-time detection…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The input comprises a time window of heading values, encompassing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Uncertainty Detection Examples ([a-f]: unsafe, uncertain [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Histogram of Nominal Data Reconstruction Loss [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Detected Uncertainty Over Flight Time certainty pattern, first detected at around the 50-second mark, leads to an eventual crash to the obstacle about 90 seconds after taking off [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Suggested Deployment Architecture for Superialist to 20 concurrent flights [56] [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Dependability of UAV-Based Networks and Computing Systems: A Survey

    cs.PF 2025-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A systematic literature review organizes UAV dependability threats and techniques and proposes eight open research directions.

  2. UAVs Meet Agentic AI: A Multidomain Survey of Autonomous Aerial Intelligence and Agentic UAVs

    cs.RO 2025-06 conditional novelty 3.0 of 10

    A narrative survey defines 'agentic UAVs' as drones with perception, cognition, control, and communication layers and catalogs applications and challenges across eight domains.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

90 extracted references · 57 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    In: International Conference on Soft- ware Engineering, pp

    Abdessalem, R.B., Nejati, S., Briand, L.C., Stifter, T.: Testing vision-based control systems using learnable evolutionary algorithms. In: International Conference on Soft- ware Engineering, pp. 1016–1026. ACM (2018). DOI 10.1145/3180155.3180160. URL http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/3180155.3180160

    arXiv 2018

  2. [2]

    In: Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation, pp

    Afzal, A., Katz, D.S., Le Goues, C., Timperley, C.S.: Simulation for robotics test au- tomation: Developer perspectives. In: Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation, pp. 263–274. IEEE (2021)

    2021

  3. [3]

    In: International Conference on Software Testing, Validation and Verification, pp

    Afzal, A., Le Goues, C., Hilton, M., Timperley, C.S.: A study on challenges of test- ing robotic systems. In: International Conference on Software Testing, Validation and Verification, pp. 96–107. IEEE (2020)

    2020

  4. [4]

    IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering (2021)

    Afzal, A., Le Goues, C., Timperley, C.S.: Mithra: Anomaly detection as an oracle for cyberphysical systems. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering (2021)

    2021

  5. [5]

    In: 2020 International Conference on Unmanned Aircraft Systems (ICUAS), pp

    Ahn, H.: Deep learning based anomaly detection for a vehicle in swarm drone system. In: 2020 International Conference on Unmanned Aircraft Systems (ICUAS), pp. 557–561. IEEE (2020)

    2020

  6. [6]

    In: Eu- romicro Conference on Digital System Design, pp

    Alcon, M., Tabani, H., Abella, J., Cazorla, F.J.: Enabling unit testing of already- integrated AI software systems: The case of apollo for autonomous driving. In: Eu- romicro Conference on Digital System Design, pp. 426–433. IEEE (2021). DOI 10.1109/DSD53832.2021.00071. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1109/DSD53832.2021.00071

    work page arXiv 2021

  7. [7]

    Amini, M.H., Naseri, S., Nejati, S.: Evaluating the impact of flaky simulators on testing autonomous driving systems. Empir. Softw. Eng.29(2), 47 (2024). DOI 10.1007/ S10664-023-10433-5. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-023-10433-5

    work page doi:10.1007/s10664-023-10433-5 2024

  8. [8]

    URLhttps://ardupilot

    Ardupilot.org: Ardupilot – versatile, trusted, open (2007). URLhttps://ardupilot. org/. Accessed: 07.02.2022

    2007

Show all 90 references
  1. [9]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.15172 (2020)

    Arnez, F., Espinoza, H., Radermacher, A., Terrier, F.: A comparison of uncertainty estimationapproachesindeeplearningcomponentsforautonomousvehicleapplications. arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.15172 (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  2. [10]

    In: 2022 18th European Depend- able Computing Conference (EDCC), pp

    Arnez, F., Espinoza, H., Radermacher, A., Terrier, F.: Towards dependable autonomous systems based on bayesian deep learning components. In: 2022 18th European Depend- able Computing Conference (EDCC), pp. 65–72. IEEE (2022)

    2022

  3. [11]

    Asmat, M.N., ur Rehman Khan, S., Hussain, S.: Uncertainty handling in cyber-physical systems: State-of-the-art approaches, tools, causes, and future directions. J. Softw. Evol. Process.35(7) (2023). DOI 10.1002/smr.2428. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1002/smr. 2428

    2023 doi

  4. [12]

    Sensors21(24), 8253 (2021)

    Balestrieri, E., Daponte, P., De Vito, L., Picariello, F., Tudosa, I.: Sensors and measurements for UAV safety: An overview. Sensors21(24), 8253 (2021). DOI 10.3390/s21248253. URLhttps://doi.org/10.3390/s21248253

    2021 doi

  5. [13]

    Spring Term 201867(2018)

    Baumann, T.: Obstacle avoidance for drones using a 3dvfh* algorithm. Spring Term 201867(2018)

    2018

  6. [14]

    In: Annual Conference of the Prognostics and Health Management Society

    Bektash, O., la Cour-Harbo, A.: Vibration analysis for anomaly detection in unmanned aircraft. In: Annual Conference of the Prognostics and Health Management Society

  7. [15]

    In: KDD workshop, 16, pp

    Berndt, D.J., Clifford, J.: Using dynamic time warping to find patterns in time series. In: KDD workshop, 16, pp. 359–370. Seattle, WA, USA: (1994)

    1994

  8. [16]

    Science of Computer Programming (SCP) (2022)

    Birchler, C., Ganz, N., Khatiri, S., Gambi, A., Panichella, S.: Cost-effective simulation- based test selection in self-driving cars software. Science of Computer Programming (SCP) (2022)

    2022

  9. [17]

    In: the 29th IEEE International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution, and Reengineering (2022)

    Birchler, C., Ganz, N., Khatiri, S., Gambi, A., Panichella, S.: Cost-effective simulation- based test selection in self-driving cars software with sdc-scissor. In: the 29th IEEE International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution, and Reengineering (2022)

    2022

  10. [18]

    Empirical Software Engineering (2022)

    Birchler, C., Khatiri, S., Bosshard, B., Gambi, A., Panichella, S.: Machine learning- based test selection for simulation-based testing of self-driving cars software. Empirical Software Engineering (2022)

    2022

  11. [19]

    ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM) (2022) When Uncertainty Leads to Unsafety 35

    Birchler, C., Khatiri, S., Derakhshanfar, P., Panichella, S., Panichella, A.: Single and multi-objective test cases prioritization for self-driving cars in virtual environments. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM) (2022) When Uncertainty Leads to U...

    2022

  12. [20]

    ACM Trans

    Birchler, C., Khatiri, S., Rani, P., Kehrer, T., Panichella, S.: A roadmap for simulation- based testing of autonomous cyber-physical systems: Challenges and future direction. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. (2025). DOI 10.1145/3711906. URLhttps://doi. org/10.1145/3711906

    2025 doi

  13. [21]

    Birchler, C., Mohammed, T.K., Rani, P., Nechita, T., Kehrer, T., Panichella, S.: How does simulation-based testing for self-driving cars match human perception? In: ACM International Conference on the Foundations of Software Engineering (2024)

    2024

  14. [22]

    IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineer- ing (2023)

    Birchler, C., Rohrbach, C., Kim, H., Gambi, A., Liu, T., Horneber, J., Kehrer, T., Panichella, S.: TEASER: Simulation-based can bus regression testing for self-driving cars software. IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineer- ing (2023)

    2023

  15. [23]

    In: International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement, pp

    Bojarczuk, K., Gucevska, N., Lucas, S.M.M., Dvortsova, I., Harman, M., Meijer, E., Sapora, S., George, J., Lomeli, M., Rojas, R.: Measurement challenges for cyber cyber digital twins: Experiences from the deployment of facebook’s WW simulation system. In: International Symposi...

    2021

  16. [24]

    In: Distributed Autonomous Robotic Systems - Interna- tional Symposium,Springer Proceedings in Advanced Robotics, vol

    Carbone, C., Albani, D., Magistri, F., Ognibene, D., Stachniss, C., Kootstra, G., Nardi, D., Trianni, V.: Monitoring and mapping of crop fields with UAV swarms based on information gain. In: Distributed Autonomous Robotic Systems - Interna- tional Symposium,Springer Proceeding...

    2021 doi

  17. [25]

    ACM Trans

    Çatak, F.Ö., Yue, T., Ali, S.: Uncertainty-aware prediction validator in deep learning models for cyber-physical system data. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol.31(4), 79:1–79:31 (2022). DOI 10.1145/3527451. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1145/3527451

    2022 doi

  18. [26]

    Chowdhury, S., Shahvari, O., Marufuzzaman, M., Li, X., Bian, L.: Drone routing and optimization for post-disaster inspection. Comput. Ind. Eng.159, 107495 (2021)

    2021

  19. [27]

    D’Andrea, R.: Guest editorial can drones deliver? IEEE Trans Autom. Sci. Eng.11(3), 647–648 (2014). DOI 10.1109/TASE.2014.2326952. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1109/ TASE.2014.2326952

    2014

  20. [28]

    In: 2015 IEEE/ACM 37th IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering, vol

    Denney, E., Pai, G., Habli, I.: Dynamic safety cases for through-life safety assurance. In: 2015 IEEE/ACM 37th IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering, vol. 2, pp. 587–590. IEEE (2015)

    2015

  21. [29]

    Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (2022)

    Di Sorbo, A., Zampetti, F., Visaggio, C.A., Penta, M.D., Panichella, S.: Automated identificationandqualitativecharacterizationofsafetyconcernsreportedinuavsoftware platforms. Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (2022)

    2022

  22. [30]

    Blog Post (2025)

    EUDronePort: C1 Drones: Certification Requirements and Operational Guidelines. Blog Post (2025). URLhttps://eudroneport.com/blog/ certification-requirements-c1-drones/. Available at:https://eudroneport. com/blog/certification-requirements-c1-drones/

    2025

  23. [31]

    EU Regulation L 152/1, Official Journal of the European Union, Brussels (2019)

    European Commission: Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/945 of 12 March 2019onunmannedaircraftsystemsandonthird-countryoperatorsofunmannedaircraft systems. EU Regulation L 152/1, Official Journal of the European Union, Brussels (2019). Defines drone classes C0-C6 and te...

    2019

  24. [32]

    EU Regulation L 152/45, Official Journal of the European Union, Brussels (2019)

    European Commission: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/947 of 24 May 2019 on the rules and procedures for the operation of unmanned aircraft. EU Regulation L 152/45, Official Journal of the European Union, Brussels (2019). Defines operational categories (Open, Speci...

    2019

  25. [33]

    Official Journal of the European Union (2014)

    European Parliament and Council of the European Union: Directive 2014/53/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to the making available on the market of radio equipment. Official Journal ...

    2014

  26. [34]

    In: MILCOM 2021 - 2021 IEEE Military Communications Con- ference (MILCOM), pp

    Galvan, J., Raja, A., Li, Y., Yuan, J.: Sensor data-driven uav anomaly detection using deep learning approach. In: MILCOM 2021 - 2021 IEEE Military Communications Con- ference (MILCOM), pp. 589–594 (2021). DOI 10.1109/MILCOM52596.2021.9653036 36 Sajad Khatiri et al

    2021

  27. [35]

    In: ICSE ’20: 42nd International Conference on Software Engineering, Seoul, South Korea, 27 June - 19 July, 2020, pp

    Garcia, J., Feng, Y., Shen, J., Almanee, S., Xia, Y., Chen, Q.A.: A comprehensive study of autonomous vehicle bugs. In: ICSE ’20: 42nd International Conference on Software Engineering, Seoul, South Korea, 27 June - 19 July, 2020, pp. 385–396. ACM (2020)

    2020

  28. [36]

    Personal and Ubiquitous Computing pp

    García, J., Molina, J.M.: Simulation in real conditions of navigation and obstacle avoid- ance with px4/gazebo platform. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing pp. 1–21 (2020)

    2020

  29. [37]

    ACM Trans

    Han, L., Ali, S., Yue, T., Arrieta, A., Arratibel, M.: Uncertainty-aware robustness as- sessment of industrial elevator systems. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol.32(4), 95:1–95:51 (2023). DOI 10.1145/3576041. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1145/3576041

    2023 doi

  30. [38]

    IEEE Trans Autom

    Hao, W., Yang, T., Yang, Q.: Hybrid statistical-machine learning for real-time anomaly detection in industrial cyber-physical systems. IEEE Trans Autom. Sci. Eng.20(1), 32– 46 (2023). DOI 10.1109/TASE.2021.3073396. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1109/TASE. 2021.3073396

    2023

  31. [39]

    Safety science59, 55–71 (2013)

    Hawkins, R., Habli, I., Kelly, T., McDermid, J.: Assurance cases and prescriptive soft- ware safety certification: A comparative study. Safety science59, 55–71 (2013)

    2013

  32. [40]

    In: 2021 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp

    Hildebrandt, C., Elbaum, S.: World-in-the-loop simulation for autonomous systems val- idation. In: 2021 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 10912–10919. IEEE (2021)

    2021

  33. [41]

    Sensors21(19), 6340 (2021)

    Huang, Z., Shen, Y., Li, J., Fey, M., Brecher, C.: A survey on ai-driven digital twins in industry 4.0: Smart manufacturing and advanced robotics. Sensors21(19), 6340 (2021). DOI 10.3390/s21196340. URLhttps://doi.org/10.3390/s21196340

    2021 doi

  34. [42]

    Kendall, A., Gal, Y.: What uncertainties do we need in bayesian deep learning for computer vision? Advances in neural information processing systems30(2017)

    2017

  35. [43]

    URL https://keras.io/examples/timeseries/timeseries_anomaly_detection/

    keras.io: Timeseries anomaly detection using an autoencoder (2020). URL https://keras.io/examples/timeseries/timeseries_anomaly_detection/. Accessed: 03.04.2024

    2020

  36. [44]

    when uncertainty leads to unsafety: Empirical insights into the role of uncertainty in unmanned aerial vehicle safety

    Khatiri, S., Mohammadi Amin, F., Panichella, S., Tonella, P.: Replication package: "when uncertainty leads to unsafety: Empirical insights into the role of uncertainty in unmanned aerial vehicle safety" (2023). DOI 10.5281/zenodo.10393522. URLhttps: //zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/ze...

    2023 doi

  37. [45]

    In: International Confer- ence on Software Testing, Verification and Validation, pp

    Khatiri, S., Panichella, S., Tonella, P.: Simulation-based test case generation for un- manned aerial vehicles in the neighborhood of real flights. In: International Confer- ence on Software Testing, Verification and Validation, pp. 281–292. IEEE (2023). URL https://doi.org/10...

    2023

  38. [46]

    In: 46th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Software En- gineering (ICSE), Lisbon, Portugal, 14-20 April 2024 (2024)

    Khatiri, S., Panichella, S., Tonella, P.: Simulation-based testing of unmanned aerial vehicles with aerialist. In: 46th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Software En- gineering (ICSE), Lisbon, Portugal, 14-20 April 2024 (2024)

    2024

  39. [47]

    In: 17th International Workshop on Search-Based and Fuzz Testing (SBFT), Lisbon, Portugal, 14-20 April 2024 (2024)

    Khatiri, S., Saurabh, P., Zimmermann, T., Munasinghe, C., Birchler, C., Panichella, S.: Sbft tool competition 2024: Cps-uav test case generation track. In: 17th International Workshop on Search-Based and Fuzz Testing (SBFT), Lisbon, Portugal, 14-20 April 2024 (2024)

    2024

  40. [48]

    In: IEEE/ACM International Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation, ICST 2025 (2025)

    Khatiri, S., Zohdinasab, T., Saurabh, P., Humeniuk, D., Panichella, S.: ICST tool com- petition 2025 - uav testing track. In: IEEE/ACM International Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation, ICST 2025 (2025)

    2025

  41. [49]

    In:IEEE/ACMInternationalWorkshoponSearch- Based and Fuzz Testing, SBFT@ICSE 2025 (2025)

    Khatiri, S., Zohdinasab, T., Saurabh, P., Humeniuk, D., Panichella, S.: SBFT tool competition2025-uavtestingtrack. In:IEEE/ACMInternationalWorkshoponSearch- Based and Fuzz Testing, SBFT@ICSE 2025 (2025)

    2025

  42. [50]

    In: International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, pp

    Koenig, N.P., Howard, A.: Design and use paradigms for gazebo, an open-source multi- robot simulator. In: International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, pp. 2149–2154. IEEE (2004). DOI 10.1109/IROS.2004.1389727. URLhttps://doi.org/ 10.1109/IROS.2004.1389727

    2004 arXiv

  43. [51]

    ACM Trans

    Laurent, T., Klikovits, S., Arcaini, P., Ishikawa, F., Ventresque, A.: Parameter coverage for testing of autonomous driving systems under uncertainty. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol.32(3), 58:1–58:31 (2023). DOI 10.1145/3550270. URLhttps://doi.org/10. 1145/3550270

    2023 doi

  44. [52]

    In: International Workshop on Metamorphic Testing, pp

    Lindvall, M., Porter, A., Magnusson, G., Schulze, C.: Metamorphic model-based testing of autonomous systems. In: International Workshop on Metamorphic Testing, pp. 35–41. IEEE (2017) When Uncertainty Leads to Unsafety 37

    2017

  45. [53]

    IEEE internet of things journal 5(4), 2315–2322 (2017)

    Lu, H., Li, Y., Mu, S., Wang, D., Kim, H., Serikawa, S.: Motor anomaly detection for unmanned aerial vehicles using reinforcement learning. IEEE internet of things journal 5(4), 2315–2322 (2017)

    2017

  46. [54]

    In: Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering, (FSE-22), Hong Kong, China, November 16 - 22, 2014, pp

    Luo, Q., Hariri, F., Eloussi, L., Marinov, D.: An empirical analysis of flaky tests. In: Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering, (FSE-22), Hong Kong, China, November 16 - 22, 2014, pp. 643– 653 (2014)

    2014

  47. [55]

    Ma, T., Ali, S., Yue, T.: Testing self-healing cyber-physical systems under uncer- tainty with reinforcement learning: an empirical study. Empir. Softw. Eng.26(3), 52 (2021). DOI 10.1007/s10664-021-09941-z. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1007/ s10664-021-09941-z

    2021 doi

  48. [56]

    Unmanned Publications (2023)

    Matternet: Faa grants approval to matternet for single pilot to op- erate up to 20 drones at test site. Unmanned Publications (2023). URLhttps://www.unmannedairspace.info/latest-news-and-information/ faa-grants-approval-for-matternet-for-single-pilot-to-operate-up-to-20-drones...

    2023

  49. [57]

    In: International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence, Inc

    McAllister, R.T., Gal, Y., Kendall, A., Van Der Wilk, M., Shah, A., Cipolla, R., Weller, A.:Concreteproblemsforautonomousvehiclesafety:Advantagesofbayesiandeeplearn- ing. In: International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence, Inc. (2017)

    2017

  50. [58]

    In: international conference on robotics and automation, pp

    Meier, L., Honegger, D., Pollefeys, M.: Px4: A node-based multithreaded open source robotics framework for deeply embedded platforms. In: international conference on robotics and automation, pp. 6235–6240. IEEE (2015)

    2015

  51. [59]

    In: 2020 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA), pp

    Michelmore, R., Wicker, M., Laurenti, L., Cardelli, L., Gal, Y., Kwiatkowska, M.: Un- certainty quantification with statistical guarantees in end-to-end autonomous driving control. In: 2020 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA), pp. 7344–7350. IEEE (2020)

    2020

  52. [61]

    In: International Conference on Artificial Intelligence Testing, pp

    Piazzoni, A., Cherian, J., Azhar, M., Yap, J.Y., Shung, J.L.W., Vijay, R.: Vista: a framework for virtual scenario-based testing of autonomous vehicles. In: International Conference on Artificial Intelligence Testing, pp. 143–150. IEEE (2021). DOI 10.1109/ AITEST52744.2021.000...

    2021

  53. [62]

    PX4: Px4 simulation.https://docs.px4.io/v1.12/en/simulation/(2021)

    2021

  54. [63]

    URLhttps://docs

    PX4.io: Log analysis using flight review | px4 user guide (2022). URLhttps://docs. px4.io/master/en/log/flight_review.html. Accessed: 07.02.2022

    2022

  55. [64]

    URLhttps://docs.px4.io/ master/en/computer_vision/obstacle_avoidance.html

    PX4.io: Obstacle avoidance | px4 user guide (2022). URLhttps://docs.px4.io/ master/en/computer_vision/obstacle_avoidance.html. Accessed: 07.02.2022

    2022

  56. [65]

    In: Design, Automation & Test in Europe Conference & Exhibition, DATE 2021, Grenoble, France, February 1-5, 2021, pp

    Roy, D., Hobbs, C., Anderson, J.H., Caccamo, M., Chakraborty, S.: Timing debugging for cyber-physical systems. In: Design, Automation & Test in Europe Conference & Exhibition, DATE 2021, Grenoble, France, February 1-5, 2021, pp. 1893–1898. IEEE (2021). DOI 10.23919/DATE51398.2...

    2021

  57. [66]

    In: International Conference on Computer Safety, Reliability, and Security, pp

    Ryan, P., Shahbeigi, S., Zou, J., Stefanakos, I., Molloy, J.: A dynamic assurance frame- work for an autonomous survey drone. In: International Conference on Computer Safety, Reliability, and Security, pp. 285–299. Springer (2024)

    2024

  58. [67]

    SAE International, War- rendale, PA (1996)

    SAE International: ARP4761: Guidelines and Methods for Conducting the Safety As- sessment Process on Civil Airborne Systems and Equipment. SAE International, War- rendale, PA (1996). Aerospace Recommended Practice

    1996

  59. [68]

    SAE International, Warrendale, PA (2010)

    SAE International: ARP4754A: Guidelines for Development of Civil Aircraft and Sys- tems. SAE International, Warrendale, PA (2010). Aerospace Recommended Practice

    2010

  60. [69]

    In: 2022 29th Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference (APSEC), pp

    Shar, L.K., Minn, W., Ta, N.B.D., Fan, J., Jiang, L., Kiat, D.L.W.: Dronlomaly: runtime detection of anomalous drone behaviors via log analysis and deep learning. In: 2022 29th Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference (APSEC), pp. 119–128. IEEE (2022)

    2022

  61. [70]

    Shin, S.Y., Chaouch, K., Nejati, S., Sabetzadeh, M., Briand, L.C., Zimmer, F.: Uncertainty-aware specification and analysis for hardware-in-the-loop testing of cyber- physical systems. J. Syst. Softw.171, 110813 (2021). DOI 10.1016/j.jss.2020.110813. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1016...

    2021

  62. [71]

    In: 2020 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp

    Sindhwani, V., Sidahmed, H., Choromanski, K., Jones, B.: Unsupervised anomaly detec- tion for self-flying delivery drones. In: 2020 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 186–192. IEEE (2020)

    2020

  63. [72]

    In: IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, IROS 2021, Prague, Czech Republic, September 27 - Oct

    Smith, S.C., Ramamoorthy, S.: Attainment regions in feature-parameter space for high- level debugging in autonomous robots. In: IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, IROS 2021, Prague, Czech Republic, September 27 - Oct. 1, 2021, pp. 6546–6551. I...

    2021

  64. [73]

    In: International Conference on Software Engineering, pp

    Stocco, A., Weiss, M., Calzana, M., Tonella, P.: Misbehaviour prediction for autonomous driving systems. In: International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 359–371 (2020)

    2020

  65. [74]

    In: IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, ICRA 2023, London, UK, May 29 - June 2, 2023, pp

    Su, S., Li, Y., He, S., Han, S., Feng, C., Ding, C., Miao, F.: Uncertainty quantification of collaborative detection for self-driving. In: IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, ICRA 2023, London, UK, May 29 - June 2, 2023, pp. 5588–5594. IEEE (2023). DOI 10...

    2023

  66. [75]

    Applied Soft Computing112, 107751 (2021)

    Thill, M., Konen, W., Wang, H., Bäck, T.: Temporal convolutional autoencoder for unsupervised anomaly detection in time series. Applied Soft Computing112, 107751 (2021)

    2021

  67. [76]

    Timperley, C.S., Afzal, A., Katz, D.S., Hernandez, J.M., Le Goues, C.: Crashing simu- lated planes is cheap: Can simulation detect robotics bugs early? In: 2018 IEEE 11th International Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation (ICST), pp. 331–342. IEEE (2018)

    2018

  68. [77]

    In: 2020 International Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing (IWCMC), pp

    Titouna, C., Naït-Abdesselam, F., Moungla, H.: An online anomaly detection approach for unmanned aerial vehicles. In: 2020 International Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing (IWCMC), pp. 469–474. IEEE (2020)

    2020

  69. [78]

    Tlili, F., Ayed, S., Chaari, L., Ouni, B.: Artificial intelligence based approach for fault and anomaly detection within uavs. In: L. Barolli, F. Hussain, T. Enokido (eds.) Ad- vancedInformationNetworkingandApplications-Proceedingsofthe36thInternational Conference on Advanced ...

    2022 doi

  70. [79]

    URLhttps: //dronewars.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/DW-Accidents-WEB.pdf

    UK, C.C.D.W.: Accidents will happen - a review of military drone crash data as the uk considers allowing large military drone flights in its airspace (2019). URLhttps: //dronewars.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/DW-Accidents-WEB.pdf

    2019

  71. [80]

    In: ACM Joint Meeting on European Software En- gineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering, pp

    Wang, D., Li, S., Xiao, G., Liu, Y., Sui, Y.: An exploratory study of autopilot software bugs in unmanned aerial vehicles. In: ACM Joint Meeting on European Software En- gineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering, pp. 20–31 (2021)

    2021

  72. [81]

    In: 2021 14th IEEE conference on software testing, verification and validation (ICST), pp

    Weiss, M., Tonella, P.: Fail-safe execution of deep learning based systems through un- certainty monitoring. In: 2021 14th IEEE conference on software testing, verification and validation (ICST), pp. 24–35. IEEE (2021)

    2021

  73. [82]

    In: 14th IEEE Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation, ICST 2021, Porto de Galinhas, Brazil, April 12-16, 2021, pp

    Weiss, M., Tonella, P.: Uncertainty-wizard: Fast and user-friendly neural network un- certainty quantification. In: 14th IEEE Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation, ICST 2021, Porto de Galinhas, Brazil, April 12-16, 2021, pp. 436–441. IEEE (2021). DOI 10....

    2021

  74. [83]

    Journal of the American Statistical Association22(158), 209–212 (1927)

    Wilson, E.B.: Probable inference, the law of succession, and statistical inference. Journal of the American Statistical Association22(158), 209–212 (1927). DOI 10.1080/01621459.1927.10502953. URLhttps://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10. 1080/01621459.1927.10502953

    1927

  75. [84]

    In: International Conference on Robotics and Automation, pp

    Woodlief, T., Elbaum, S., Sullivan, K.: Fuzzing mobile robot environments for fast automated crash detection. In: International Conference on Robotics and Automation, pp. 5417–5423. IEEE (2021)

    2021

  76. [85]

    In: Workshop on Artificial Intelligence Safety,CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol

    Wotawa, F.: On the use of available testing methods for verification & validation of ai-based software and systems. In: Workshop on Artificial Intelligence Safety,CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 2808. CEUR-WS.org (2021). URLhttp://ceur-ws.org/ Vol-2808/Paper_29.pdf When Uncert...

    2021

  77. [86]

    Wu, L., Xi, Z., Zheng, Z., Li, X.: Application of metamorphic testing on UAV path planning software. J. Syst. Softw.204, 111769 (2023). DOI 10.1016/J.JSS.2023.111769. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2023.111769

    2023

  78. [87]

    Xu, Q., Ali, S., Yue, T., Arratibel, M.: Uncertainty-aware transfer learning to evolve digital twins for industrial elevators. In: A. Roychoudhury, C. Cadar, M. Kim (eds.) Proceedings of the 30th ACM Joint European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundatio...

    2022

  79. [88]

    Expert Syst

    Yang, T., Hao, W., Yang, Q., Wang, W.: Cloud-edge coordinated traffic anomaly detec- tion for industrial cyber-physical systems. Expert Syst. Appl.230, 120668 (2023). DOI 10.1016/j.eswa.2023.120668. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2023.120668

    2023

  80. [89]

    Journal of Systems and Software 192, 111425 (2022)

    Zampetti, F., Kapur, R., Di Penta, M., Panichella, S.: An empirical characterization of software bugs in open-source cyber–physical systems. Journal of Systems and Software 192, 111425 (2022). DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2022.111425. URLhttps:// www.sciencedirect.com/sci...

    2022

  81. [90]

    ACM Trans

    Zampetti, F., Tamburri, D.A., Panichella, S., Panichella, A., Canfora, G., Penta, M.D.: Continuous integration and delivery practices for cyber-physical systems: An interview- based study. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. (2022). DOI 10.1145/3571854. URL https://doi.org/10.114...

    2022 doi

  82. [91]

    ACM Trans

    Zohdinasab, T., Riccio, V., Gambi, A., Tonella, P.: Efficient and effective feature space exploration for testing deep learning systems. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol.32(2), 49:1–49:38 (2023). DOI 10.1145/3544792. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1145/3544792

    2023 doi

Pith tools

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