Exploration of the Evolution of Airport Ground Delay Programs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study introduces a novel method of merging disparate but complementary datasets and applying machine learning techniques to ground delay program (GDP) data. More specifically, it aims to characterize GDPs with respect to changing weather forecasts, GDP plan parameters, and operational performance. The analysis aims to gain insights into GDP usage patterns (implementation and revisions), with respect to these key dimensions. It also aims to gain insights into how GDP cancelations and revisions correlate with operational efficiency and predictability. The results could be used to help traffic managers and air carriers understand complex patterns in the evolution of GDPs, so that they might, for example, better anticipate or even plan a response to a change in weather conditions. The focus is on GDPs at Newark Liberty International Airport (EWR), from 2010 through 2014. A master dataset was generated by merging several datasets on GDPs, weather forecasts, and individual flight information. Several scenarios of GDP evolution were then identified by reducing the dimensionality of the master GDP dataset, then applying cluster analysis on the lower dimensional data. It was found that GDPs at EWR can be categorized into 10 types based on weather forecasts, realized weather, GDP scope, arrival rates, and duration. The characteristics of these 10 GDP clusters were further explored by examining the relationships between GDP scenarios and their performance. It was found that GDPs under stable, low-severity weather and with large scope may score higher on the efficiency metric than expected. When GDPs called in the same weather conditions have high program rates, medium durations, and narrow scopes, capacity utilization was higher than expected—less affected flights lead to fewer cancelations and more arrivals (albeit delayed), and therefore, higher capacity utilization. Results also suggest that program rates are set more conservatively than needed for some poor weather conditions that end earlier than expected. GDPs with fewer revisions were associated with a higher predictability score but lower efficiency score. These findings can provide greater insights and knowledge about GDPs for future planning purposes. More specifically, the findings could, for example, be used to support discussion around, or even future guidance regarding, how to set and adjust GDP program rates. In future work additional data could be utilized to provide a more comprehensive operational picture of GDPs, and a wider range of performance metrics could be considered. It is also recommended that the patterns of how GDPs evolve over their lifetimes be further explored using other machine learning techniques that may provide new and useful insights.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".