Searcharxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2204.14250

Collision Risk and Operational Impact of Speed Change Advisories as Aircraft Collision Avoidance Maneuvers

Sydney M. Katz·Luis E. Alvarez·Michael Owen·Samuel Wu·Marc Brittain·Anshuman Das·Mykel J. Kochenderfer
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Aircraft collision avoidance systems have long been a key factor in keeping our airspace safe. Over the past decade, the FAA has supported the development of a new family of collision avoidance systems called the Airborne Collision Avoidance System X (ACAS X), which model the collision avoidance problem as a Markov decision process (MDP). Variants of ACAS X have been created for both manned (ACAS Xa) and unmanned aircraft (ACAS Xu and ACAS sXu). The variants primarily differ in the types of collision avoidance maneuvers they issue. For example, ACAS Xa issues vertical collision avoidance advisories, while ACAS Xu and ACAS sXu allow for horizontal advisories due to reduced aircraft performance capabilities. Currently, a new variant of ACAS X, called ACAS Xr, is being developed to provide collision avoidance capability to rotorcraft and Advanced Air Mobility (AAM) vehicles. Due to the desire to minimize deviation from the prescribed flight path of these aircraft, speed adjustments have been proposed as a potential collision avoidance maneuver for aircraft using ACAS Xr. In this work, we investigate the effect of speed change advisories on the safety and operational efficiency of collision avoidance systems. We develop an MDP-based collision avoidance logic that issues speed advisories and compare its performance to that of horizontal and vertical logics through Monte Carlo simulation on existing airspace encounter models. Our results show that while speed advisories are able to reduce collision risk, they are neither as safe nor as efficient as their horizontal and vertical counterparts.

Explore related subjects

cs.ROcs.SYeess.SY

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Sydney M. Katz, Luis E. Alvarez, Michael Owen, Samuel Wu, Marc Brittain, Anshuman Das, Mykel J. Kochenderfer. 2022-04-29. Collision Risk and Operational Impact of Speed Change Advisories as Aircraft Collision Avoidance Maneuvers. https://arxiv.org/abs/2204.14250

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

IMLE-VLA: Fast Single-Step Action Generation for Vision-Language-Action Policies

Vision-language-action (VLA) policies leverage pretrained vision-language backbones to achieve strong cross-task generalization. A leading design couples this backbone with a dedicated continuous action head trained via diffusion or flow matching. However, such heads rely on iterative multi-step sampling, for example 10 Euler steps in $\pi_{0.5}$. This creates an inference bottleneck that produces stop-and-go movement in the robot and slower task completion. We introduce IMLE-VLA, which replaces the iterative action head with a single-step conditional generator trained via conditional Implicit Maximum Likelihood Estimation (cIMLE). The cIMLE objective promotes multimodal action coverage, avoiding the mode collapse of naive regression heads while eliminating multi-step sampling entirely. When IMLE-VLA is applied to $\pi_{0.5}$, it increases inference frequency 3.67x (55 Hz vs. 15 Hz), enabling up to 11x higher action throughput. On the 40-task LIBERO benchmark, IMLE-VLA achieves the highest average success rate (98.0%) among all baselines while leading in inference frequency. Under the test-time perturbations of LIBERO-plus, IMLE-VLA retains $\pi_{0.5}$'s robustness while other baselines degrade sharply, confirming that the cIMLE head preserves generalization. Real-world experiments on a Franka Emika Panda across four tasks demonstrate smoother motion (2.2x to 3.0x lower jerk) and faster task completion, with IMLE-VLA outperforming $\pi_{0.5}$ on every task and reducing average VLA inference time per episode by 3.9x to 6.6x. Videos and code are available at https://kianhk6.github.io/IMLE-VLA/

cs.RO↗
arXiv2026

ObstaDiff: Generalizable Diffusion Policy Learning via Obstacle-aware Representations

Imitation learning has achieved impressive results in robotic manipulation, yet most existing approaches assume clean backgrounds and lack explicit mechanisms for obstacle-aware motion generation. Extending such policies to cluttered, real-world scenes with unstructured obstacles remains a key generalization challenge. We present ObstaDiff, a decomposed diffusion-policy framework with a lightweight obstacle-aware visual encoder. ObstaDiff extracts a structured target-obstacle-background representation, enabling the downstream alignment policy to generate end-effector trajectories toward a target-centered bottleneck pose while reasoning about surrounding obstacles. We evaluate ObstaDiff on 61 real-robot greenhouse trials per method (366 executions in total). ObstaDiff achieves 75.41% average task success and 8.20% average obstacle collision rate, outperforming representative imitation-learning baselines and improving generalization in cluttered agricultural scenes.

cs.RO↗
arXiv2026

Testing Between the Test Cases: Proving End-to-End Steering in Conditions You Never Drove

AI-based automated vehicle testing is challenging because a model that passes every test condition can still fail in the real world. Formal verification offers a way to directly address this gap. On a simulated highway and an arterial road we trained two small end-to-end steering networks each in CARLA, one on clear conditions alone and one on clear, fog, night and low sun. All four models were driven against a 2.19 ft lane-departure budget. Without driving again, we used bound propagation, a formal method that reads the trained weights, to compute how far steering can drift at every disturbance strength between two captured images. One calculation covers more than a campaign could drive: on the arterial it spans 133 poses, where ten intensities each would be 10^133 combinations, in minutes on one GPU. Not only did formal verification find conditions that broke the clear-trained policy without simulation testing, it provided some preliminary evidence for potential failures between the test cases. Our overall conclusion is that formal verification is a viable complement to simulation, and could be adopted as a part of verification and validation for automated driving.

cs.RO↗