Interruption-Aware Recurrent Reinforcement Learning for UAS Navigation Under Temporary Overrides

Engineering notes

Engineering notes will be added by the Robot Papers editorial team.

Chinese explanation / 中文解读

中文解读待补充：本站会优先为 VLA、具身智能、人形机器人控制、机器人操作等高价值论文补充中文说明。

Original abstract

Safe autonomous navigation of UASs requires tactical deconfliction to address conflicts that strategic coordination cannot prevent. This task is challenging under partial observability, when sensor or traffic data are missing, delayed, or degraded. Geometry-based methods can offer separation assurances but face limitations in dense encounters. Recurrent reinforcement learning has therefore been proposed to learn navigation policies that integrate observation-action histories to optimise long-term safety-efficiency trade-offs. However, operational safeguards may require a remote pilot, onboard detect-and-avoid system, or runtime assurance mechanism to temporarily override the learned policy. A research gap remains in understanding how these interruptions affect recurrent policies when the agent regains authority. Benchmark evidence shows that interruptions make task variables less decodable from the recurrent hidden state and increase post-interruption collision risk. The findings suggest that altered recurrent context prolongs post-handback degradation through an action-observation feedback loop, in which changed actions alter the flight path and subsequent recurrent updates. To address this vulnerability, we propose three interruption-aware architectures that condition recurrent processing on interruption context through separate feature streams, dedicated interruption memory, or gated environmental features. Across simulations, all three architectures preserve more decodable task information than a standard recurrent policy. Moreover, the strongest architecture reduces post-interruption collisions by 74% and interruption-induced mission failures by 69% relative to the recurrent baseline, without degrading interruption-free performance. These results show that safe interruption does not guarantee safe handback, and support interruption-aware recurrent design for resilient UAS autonomy.

Links and sources

• Official / arXiv page
• PDF from original source

Comments