230 lines
18 KiB
Plaintext
230 lines
18 KiB
Plaintext
|
||
|
||
=== PAGE 1 ===
|
||
Proposal Evaluation Form
|
||
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
|
||
Horizon Europe (HORIZON)
|
||
Evaluation Summary
|
||
Report - Research and
|
||
innovation actions
|
||
Call: HORIZON-SESAR-2025-DES-ER-03
|
||
Type of action: HORIZON-JU-RIA
|
||
Proposal number: 101289612
|
||
Proposal acronym: QUANTAIR
|
||
Duration (months): 24
|
||
Proposal title: Quantum Technologies for Airspace Innovation and Resilience
|
||
Activity: ER-03-WA1
|
||
N. Proposer name Country Total
|
||
eligible
|
||
costs
|
||
% Grant
|
||
Requested
|
||
%
|
||
1 DEUTSCHES ZENTRUM FUR LUFT - UND RAUMFAHRT
|
||
EV
|
||
DE 167,350 17.70% 167,350 17.70%
|
||
2 Qoro Quantum Ltd UK 435,086.16 46.02% 435,086.16 46.02%
|
||
3 SkyNav Europe BE 342,890.63 36.27% 342,890.63 36.27%
|
||
Total: 945,326.79 945,326.79
|
||
Abstract:
|
||
European air traffic management is becoming increasingly complex. The system now has to handle a growing variety of airspace users — from
|
||
hypersonic vehicles and high-altitude long-endurance platforms such as stratospheric balloons and HAPS, to conventional subsonic flights. These
|
||
vehicles often operate in overlapping altitude bands but have vastly different speeds, climb/descent profiles, and manoeuvring capabilities.
|
||
At the same time, environmental policy drivers are stronger than ever. The EU Green Deal, ICAO’s long-term aspirational goals, and national climate
|
||
strategies are pushing for measurable reductions in both CO₂ and non-CO₂ impacts, such as persistent contrails. Resilience has also become a priority,
|
||
with the network increasingly affected by severe weather, technical failures, and geopolitical events that can close or restrict airspace at short notice.
|
||
One of the biggest technical challenges in all of these contexts is that many stakeholders — States, ANSPs, airlines, and defence operators — cannot
|
||
freely share operationally, privacy, or commercially sensitive data. Without that data, current modelling and optimisation tools have to work with
|
||
partial information, limiting their effectiveness.
|
||
Previous European research has already demonstrated that Federated Learning (FL) can bridge this gap, enabling accurate predictions without
|
||
requiring data to leave its origin. QUANTAIR proposes to take this further by pairing FL with quantum optimisation — allowing us to integrate
|
||
richer, privacy-protected data from multiple stakeholders, and then solve the resulting large-scale, multi-variable problems at speeds suitable for
|
||
operational decision-making.
|
||
Evaluation Summary Report
|
||
Evaluation Result
|
||
Total score: 11.30 (Threshold: 10 )
|
||
Criterion 1 - Excellence
|
||
Score: (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - )4.00
|
||
101289612/QUANTAIR-28/01/2026-09:48:41 1 /
|
||
5
|
||
Associated with document Ref. Ares(2026)967916 - 28/01/2026
|
||
|
||
=== PAGE 2 ===
|
||
The following aspects will be taken into account, to the extent that the proposed work corresponds to the description in the work programme:
|
||
- Clarity and pertinence of the proposal: degree to which the objectives, scope and requirements set out in the call material are well understood and
|
||
fully addressed.
|
||
- Soundness of the proposed methodology for developing the SESAR solutions, including the underlying concepts, models, assumptions and
|
||
interdisciplinary approaches. This criterion also includes appropriate consideration of the integration of a gender dimension into R&I content and
|
||
the quality of open science practices, including sharing and management of research outputs and engagement of citizens, civil society and end users
|
||
where appropriate.
|
||
- Level of awareness of the state of the art: degree to which the proposal demonstrates knowledge of current operations and relevant previous R&D
|
||
work (both within and outside SESAR), explains how the proposed work will go beyond the state of the art and demonstrates innovation potential.
|
||
QUANTAIR proposal is well-structured, in scope and addresses the priority ‘Quantum Computing (QC) applications in ATM’ under Work Area 1. The four diverse
|
||
case studies give breadth and robustness to the analysis and ensures relevance across operational domains.
|
||
Objectives are realistic and very promising to obtain a collaborative modeling aligned with SESAR Digital European Sky ambitions. Objectives will be realistically
|
||
achievable. However, they are broadly defined and therefore their measurability and verifiability are difficult. This approach does not make it possible to establish
|
||
KPIs or more concrete expectations at project conclusion. This is a shortcoming.
|
||
The proposal fits in idea to application’s spectrum, and it properly identifies the work in early stages of R&I maturity, concluding at TRL1.
|
||
The proposal proposes investigation on AI-based techniques and/or systems. However, there is no concretion on which federated learning methods will be used,
|
||
leading to difficulty assessing the approach in explainable AI, considering the technical robustness, reproducibility, and reliability. This is a minor shortcoming.
|
||
The research framework proposed is well described and logic to explore how Quantum Federated machine Learning (QFL) can be applied in ATM. The four
|
||
exploratory cases identified are concise and will guide the investigation. They are well formulated and balanced for resilience, operational efficiency, integration
|
||
of new entrants and sustainability. Furthermore, limitations of the actual approaches are well argued and consequently, the expected outputs from each case are
|
||
very well identified.
|
||
The proposal does not fully provide an adequate rationale on how to address automation level 4 and/or how it would revert to conditional automation level 3. This
|
||
is a shortcoming.
|
||
The interdisciplinary methodology proposed is convincingly presented in order to achieve the expected outcomes of the project. However, the proposal does not
|
||
sufficiently detail candidate models and/or methods to be researched as well as the datasets to cover all cases to generate synthetic data, leading to an insufficient
|
||
level of technical insights. This is a shortcoming.
|
||
The proposal provides a solid explanation of how distributed learning enables privacy-preserving collaboration across fragmented data sources. It clearly defines
|
||
assumptions, limitations, and the role of quantum computing as a conceptual extension rather than immediate delivery.
|
||
Open science (OS) practices are of a high standard and are adequately managed in the proposal. OS are aligned with the Horizon Europe guidelines, disseminating
|
||
research outputs in open and accessible formats using FAIR rules such as publications, software and modelling artifacts and synthetic data generated. Other
|
||
relevant strategies proposed are knowledge-sharing channels and organization of technical workshops. The proposal provides a detailed plan for transparent
|
||
research outputs and open access. It includes clear information on documentation, repositories, and licensing. Besides, the proposal also identifies and justifies no
|
||
raw data will be disseminated. In addition, the use of open-source data for simulations is convincing.
|
||
The research data management plan is properly addressed following the FAIR principles.
|
||
The proposal is very innovative because it uses a distributed approach instead of a centralized one for training models with dispersed data sources, something very
|
||
common in the ATM environment.
|
||
The proposal demonstrates good knowledge of operations, however, the proposal is limited in terms of state of the art review on both, quantum methods and
|
||
federated machine learning, outside and inside SESAR, not including sufficient references of SESAR projects such as SINAPSE. This is a shortcoming.
|
||
Criterion 2 - Impact
|
||
Score: (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - )4.00
|
||
101289612/QUANTAIR-28/01/2026-09:48:41 2 /
|
||
5
|
||
Associated with document Ref. Ares(2026)967916 - 28/01/2026
|
||
|
||
=== PAGE 3 ===
|
||
The following aspects will be taken into account, to the extent that the proposed work corresponds to the description in the work programme:
|
||
- Credibility of the pathways to achieve the expected outcomes and impacts specified in the call material.
|
||
- Suitability and quality of the measures in terms of maximising expected outcomes and impacts, as set out in the dissemination and exploitation
|
||
(D&E) plan, including communication activities.
|
||
The proposal addresses very well the expected outcomes of the topic, i.e. investigate quantum computing applied to ATM. The project outcomes will positively
|
||
contribute to a better understanding of the uses, benefits and limitations of QFL in ATM. It also demonstrates awareness of policy needs and engagements required
|
||
to influence and promote across international organizations such as ICAO, EASA and EUROCONTROL. Therefore, the project results will support defining a
|
||
pathway in this domain and a research agenda to progress towards higher TRLs in a more structured manner.
|
||
The proposal includes strong policy alignment and situational awareness linkages to higher-airspace roadmaps, contingency frameworks and climate work.
|
||
The proposal presents a thoughtful impact prospectus by setting a credible goal for collaborative modelling ATM, both in medium-term and to the wider long-term.
|
||
ATM challenges are well suited through the four exploratory cases proposed: predictability, higher-airspace entrants, disruption response and contrail mitigation.
|
||
The proposal addresses the wider impacts of the ATM Master Plan and justifies adherence to SESAR Deployment Objectives (SDOs) 3, 5 and 8, although in very
|
||
general terms. SESAR Phase D implementation and Key Performance Areas (KPAs) are not well considered. This is a shortcoming.
|
||
Requirements and key barriers that may influence whether the pathways can be realized are well identified, being data privacy and sovereignty a driver to use
|
||
federated machine learning. Potential barriers associated with quantum computing and methods are overlooked in the proposal. The mitigation measures for the
|
||
recognized barriers are ambiguous because they are very generically addressed. This is a shortcoming.
|
||
Target groups and beneficiaries are properly identified and described.
|
||
The communication and dissemination strategy is effective and appropriate with well described common communication channels, target groups and potential
|
||
panels and forums at ICAO and EASA, attendance at conferences, marketing material, among others. Open science commitments and programme-level
|
||
dissemination routes are well covered too focusing on participation in conferences and publications. Measures to share and reuse outputs with open access and
|
||
repositories are proportionate.
|
||
However, no clear reference KPIs are established to define targets and assess the performance at project closure, as well as a preliminary list of potential and
|
||
relevant peer-reviewed journals for dissemination (publications targets), website and social media reachability targets. In addition, exploitation will be conducted
|
||
through institutional channels, but this is insufficiently described in the proposal. All this is a shortcoming.
|
||
The intellectual-property approach is generically described. Furthermore, access/licensing terms for reuse and any embargo logic are not clearly specified. This is a
|
||
shortcoming.
|
||
Criterion 3 - Quality and efficiency of the implementation
|
||
Score: (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - )3.30
|
||
The following aspects will be taken into account, to the extent that the proposed work corresponds to the description in the work programme:
|
||
- Quality and effectiveness of the work plan and assessment of risks, and appropriateness of the effort assigned to work packages, and the resources
|
||
overall.
|
||
- Capacity and role of each participant, and the extent to which the consortium as a whole brings together the necessary expertise.
|
||
The work plan proposed is structured in four WPs. However, the work plan is not clearly articulated because the different concrete outputs between WP2 and WP3
|
||
are not clearly distinguished. In addition, there are no clear tasks and assignments of roles among partners in each WP to clearly identify the work and
|
||
responsibilities. There are inconsistencies regarding the duration of the work packages and deliverables according to the Project Handbook, because the duration of
|
||
the project is 24 months and the last 6 months are dedicated to CDE activities. This implies that technical deliverables should be delivered at M14, for instance,
|
||
deliverables 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 are incorrectly delivered. In addition, deliverables 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4 should be delivered at M22. Furthermore, the GANTT chart shows
|
||
a duration for WP2 of 6 months and a duration of 12 months for WP3, whereas in the work package description the duration of WP2 and WP3 is 9 months each.
|
||
These issues are collectively hindering the implementation and consequently entail a shortcoming.
|
||
CDE activities are split into two different WPs and led by two different partners, which causes unclarity in responsibilities in this aspect. This is a minor
|
||
shortcoming.
|
||
All technical deliverables required for TRL1 are listed, as well as classified as PU.
|
||
Regarding milestones, they are not aligned with the Project Handbook, because there is no explicit “Exit Maturity Gate” milestone. This is a shortcoming.
|
||
There is a good list of critical risks identified and categorized with an adequate set of mitigation measures and strategies to manage them. Risk management is
|
||
tailored to TRL1 and include inconclusive findings and synthetic-data credibility with pragmatic mitigations as well.
|
||
Regarding efforts, allocations and distribution among partners and WPs are reasonable to perform the work, except for WP1.
|
||
However, it is noted that SkyNav employs more Person Months than the Coordinator in WP1; this may be justified by SkyNav’s CDE lead, but it is unusual for
|
||
management. Furthermore, there are clear incoherences between the information presented in table 3.1a and the information included in table 3.1f, in terms of
|
||
PMs allocated to the same partner (DLR WP1 10 PMs vs 5PMs; Ooro WP2 18PMs vs 14PMs). In addition, it is unclear whether the total PM for the project is 50
|
||
(from table 3.1a) or 78.8 (from table 3.1f). This is a shortcoming.
|
||
The project team combines researchers, distributed systems engineers and air traffic management experts. Their roles are clearly delineated, and the joint design
|
||
approach is well structured for conceptual integration rather than development. Technical work packages are properly distributed at high-level and consistent with
|
||
the knowledge and background of partners. Tasks are very convincingly assigned to members of the consortium according to their technical background and
|
||
expertise and covers the required scientific and technical disciplines.
|
||
The Consortium brings together the necessary expertise required by the project framework and the project coordinator demonstrates also relevant experience in
|
||
SESAR for undertaking the project management.
|
||
Scope of the application
|
||
Status: Yes
|
||
101289612/QUANTAIR-28/01/2026-09:48:41 3 /
|
||
5
|
||
Associated with document Ref. Ares(2026)967916 - 28/01/2026
|
||
|
||
=== PAGE 4 ===
|
||
Comments (in case the proposal is out of scope)
|
||
Not provided
|
||
Exceptional funding
|
||
A third country participant/international organisation not listed in may exceptionally receive funding if the General Annex to the Main Work Programme
|
||
their participation is essential for carrying out the project (for instance due to outstanding expertise, access to unique know-how, access to research
|
||
infrastructure, access to particular geographical environments, possibility to involve key partners in emerging markets, access to data, etc.). (For more
|
||
information, see the ) HE programme guide
|
||
Please list the concerned applicants and requested grant amount and explain the reasons why.
|
||
Based on the information provided, the following participants should receive exceptional funding:
|
||
Not provided
|
||
Based on the information provided, the following participants should NOT receive exceptional funding:
|
||
Not provided
|
||
Use of human embryonic stem cells (hESC)
|
||
Status: No
|
||
If YES, please state whether the use of hESC is, or is not, in your opinion, necessary to achieve the scientific objectives of the proposal and the
|
||
reasons why. Alternatively, please state if it cannot be assessed whether the use of hESC is necessary or not, because of a lack of information.
|
||
Not provided
|
||
Use of human embryos
|
||
Status: No
|
||
If YES, please explain how the human embryos will be used in the project.
|
||
Not provided
|
||
Activities excluded from funding
|
||
Status: No
|
||
If YES, please explain.
|
||
Not provided
|
||
Do no significant harm principle
|
||
Status: Yes
|
||
If Partially/No/Cannot be assessed please explain
|
||
Not provided
|
||
Exclusive focus on civil applications
|
||
Status: Yes
|
||
If NO, please explain.
|
||
Not provided
|
||
Artificial Intelligence
|
||
101289612/QUANTAIR-28/01/2026-09:48:41 4 /
|
||
5
|
||
Associated with document Ref. Ares(2026)967916 - 28/01/2026
|
||
|
||
=== PAGE 5 ===
|
||
Status: Yes
|
||
If YES, the technical robustness of the proposed system must be evaluated under the appropriate criterion.
|
||
Overall comments
|
||
Not provided
|
||
101289612/QUANTAIR-28/01/2026-09:48:41 5 /
|
||
5
|
||
Associated with document Ref. Ares(2026)967916 - 28/01/2026
|
||
|
||
=== PAGE 6 ===
|
||
|
||
|
||
Commission européenne/Europese Commissie, 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË - Tel. +32 22991111
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
This electronic receipt is a digitally signed version of the document submitted by your
|
||
organisation. Both the content of the document and a set of metadata have been digitally
|
||
sealed.
|
||
This digital signature mechanism, using a public -private key pair mechanism, uniquely
|
||
binds this eReceipt to the modules of the Funding & Tenders Portal of the European
|
||
Commission, to the transaction for which it was generated and ensures its full integr ity.
|
||
Therefore a complete digitally signed trail of the transaction is available both for your
|
||
organisation and for the issuer of the eReceipt.
|
||
Any attempt to modify the content will lead to a break of the integrity of the electronic
|
||
signature, which can b e verified at any time by clicking on the eReceipt validation
|
||
symbol.
|
||
More info about eReceipts can be found in the FAQ page of the Funding & Tenders
|
||
Portal.
|
||
(https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/portal/screen/support/faq)
|
||
|