Assuring Safety of Vision-Based Swarm Formation Control

Vision-based formation control systems are attractive because they can use inexpensive sensors and can work in GPS-denied environments. The safety assurance for such systems is challenging: the vision component's accuracy depends on the environment in complicated ways, these errors propagate through the system and lead to incorrect control actions, and there exists no formal specification for end-to-end reasoning. We address this problem and propose a technique for safety assurance of vision-based formation control: First, we propose a scheme for constructing quantizers that are consistent with vision-based perception. Next, we show how the convergence analysis of a standard quantized consensus algorithm can be adapted for the constructed quantizers. We use the recently defined notion of perception contracts to create error bounds on the actual vision-based perception pipeline using sampled data from different ground truth states, environments, and weather conditions. Specifically, we use a quantizer in logarithmic polar coordinates, and we show that this quantizer is suitable for the constructed perception contracts for the vision-based position estimation, where the error worsens with respect to the absolute distance between agents. We build our formation control algorithm with this nonuniform quantizer, and we prove its convergence employing an existing result for quantized consensus.Comment: 8 pages, 7 figures, submitted to the 2024 American Control Conference (ACC 2024

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)

In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field