ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Quantifying Pilot Operational Deviations Based on Flight Data via Inverse Reinforcement Learning and Conformal Prediction.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Threshold-based flight data monitoring (FDM) identifies parameter exceedances but provides limited visibility into gradual operational deviation within nominal operating bounds. This study presents a three-layer framework for continuous operational deviation quantification from quick access recorder (QAR) data. A standard operating procedure (SOP)-constrained Gaussian mixture model-hidden Markov model (GMM-HMM) infers 27 procedural states from flight parameters, aligning latent state representation with operational procedure. From these state sequences, maximum entropy inverse reinforcement learning (IRL) recovers an expert value function that estimates execution quality at each time step. Split conformal prediction calibrates detection thresholds with distribution-free coverage guarantees, while counterfactual analysis traces identified deviations to their procedural origin. Learned from real flight data, the recovered reward function assigns 1.6 times greater weight to lateral and speed stability than to vertical stability. Split conformal calibration yields an empirical false alarm rate of 4.2% under a nominal 5% significance level. Counterfactual analysis identifies vertical speed management as the dominant source of procedural deviation. These results support the proposed framework as a candidate continuous safety performance indicator that surfaces gradual operational deviation that threshold-based exceedance monitoring would not flag.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.