Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

A consultation on the ACAS X algorithm in DO-385 #2

Open
18120251 opened this issue Nov 23, 2021 · 4 comments
Open

A consultation on the ACAS X algorithm in DO-385 #2

18120251 opened this issue Nov 23, 2021 · 4 comments

Comments

@18120251
Copy link

Hello, have you ever reproduced the ACAS X algorithm implemented in the Julia language in DO-385? I encountered difficulties in the process of implementation.

@1054651112
Copy link

Hello, have you solved the problem?
The Julia version given in the standard is too old. I used a new version of Julia to run the program, but there are still some testcases that are inconsistent with the standard. May I ask if you have these questions? Looking forward to your reply.

@18120251
Copy link
Author

Hello, have you solved the problem? The Julia version given in the standard is too old. I used a new version of Julia to run the program, but there are still some testcases that are inconsistent with the standard. May I ask if you have these questions? Looking forward to your reply.

Yes. I replicated the ACAS-X algorithm using Julia version 1.4, but the TRM result report I ran always does not match the standard result.

@1054651112
Copy link

Thank you for your reply. The version I am using is 1.9.2, and there is not much difference in TRMREPORT. My current issue is the inconsistency between STMREPORT and the standard, manifested in the 'belief_horiz' data in the 'intruder' attribute.

@1054651112
Copy link

I haven't found the reason yet. I'm not sure if it's a problem with the data provided by the standard or with my input processing. Because in the testcases of Group 6, some of the output results were correct, but there are differences in 'x_ rel' and 'dx_rel' at some moments compared to the standard. May I ask if you know the reason?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants