Extended Aircraft Arrival Management Under Uncertainty: A Computational Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The arrival manager operational horizon, in Europe, is foreseen to be extended up to 500 n miles around destination airports. In this context, arrivals need to be sequenced and scheduled a few hours before landing, when uncertainty is still significant. A computational study, based on a two-stage stochastic program, is presented and discussed to address the arrival sequencing and scheduling problem under uncertainty. This preliminary study focuses on a single initial approach fix and a single runway. Different problem characteristics, optimization parameters, as well as fast solution methods for real-time implementation are analyzed in order to evaluate the viability of our approach. Paris Charles-De-Gaulle airport is taken as a case study. A simulation-based validation experiment shows that the current approach can decrease the number of expected conflicts near the terminal area by up to 70%. Moreover, in a high-density traffic situation, the total time to lose inside the terminal area can be decreased by more than 71%, whereas the expected landing rate can be increased by 7.7% as compared to the first-come/first-served policy. This computational study demonstrates that sequencing and scheduling arrivals under uncertainty a few hours before landing can successfully diminish the need for holding stacks by relying more on upstream linear holding.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".