MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1956482804 · doi:10.1002/atr.1324

Conflict‐free time‐based trajectory planning for aircraft taxi automation with refined taxiway modeling

2015· article· en· W1956482804 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Tianci Zhang, Meng Ding, Bangfeng Wang, Qian Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Transportation · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAir Traffic Management and Optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsTrajectoryAutomationComputer scienceOperations researchReal-time computingRouting (electronic design automation)SimulationAir traffic controlTransport engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary To mitigate airport congestion caused by increasing air traffic demand, the trajectory‐based surface operations concept has been proposed to improve surface movement efficiency while maintaining safety. It utilizes decision support tools to provide optimized time‐based trajectories for each aircraft and uses automation systems to guide surface movements and monitor their conformance with assigned trajectories. Whether the time‐based trajectories can be effectively followed so that the expected benefits can be guaranteed depends firstly on whether these trajectories are realistic. So, this paper first deals with the modeling biases of the network model typically used for taxi trajectory planning via refined taxiway modeling. Then it presents a zone control‐based dynamic routing and timing algorithm upon the refined taxiway model to find the shortest time taxi route and timings for an aircraft. Finally, the presented algorithm is integrated with a sequential planning framework to continuously decide taxi routes and timings. Experimental results demonstrate that the solution time for an aircraft can be steadily around a few milliseconds with timely cleaning of expired time windows, showing potential for real‐time decision support applications. The results also show the advantages of the proposed methodology over existing approaches. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.075

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.213 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations21
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advanced TransportationSame topicAir Traffic Management and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207