MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Horizontal flight trajectory optimization considering RTA constraints

2020· article· en· W3031006202 on OpenAlexafffund
Alejandro Murrieta-Mendoza, Hugo Ruiz, Ruxandra Mihaela Botez

Bibliographic record

VenueMATEC Web of Conferences · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAir Traffic Management and Optimization
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
FundersFonds Québécois de la Recherche sur la Nature et les TechnologiesConsejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología
KeywordsTrajectoryConstraint (computer-aided design)Fuel efficiencyTrajectory optimizationParticle swarm optimizationComputer scienceAtmosphere (unit)Mathematical optimizationEnvironmental scienceAutomotive engineeringEngineeringMeteorologyAlgorithmMathematicsMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The increasing of flights around the world has led to various problems for the aeronautical industry such as saturated air space and higher levels of fossil fuel consumption. The way in which en-route flights are handled should be improved in order to increase airways’ capacity. A solution is to make aircraft to arrive at specific waypoints at a time constraint called Required Time of Arrival (RTA). Fossil fuel brings as a consequence the release of polluting particles to the atmosphere such as carbon dioxide and nitrogen oxides. It is thus desirable to compute the most economical trajectory in terms of fuel burn while fulfilling the RTA constraint. This article proposes a horizontal reference trajectory optimization algorithm based on the Particle Swarm Optimization technique in order to reduce fuel burn while fulfilling the RTA constraint. Results showed that for a flight without RTA constraint, up to 4% of fuel can be saved comparing against the trajectory of reference. The algorithm was normally able to meet the RTA constrain. However, aggressive RTA constraints might reduce the optimization levels of fuel compared with flights without RTA constraint.

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)0.000
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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.192
Teacher spread0.175 · 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

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMATEC Web of ConferencesSame topicAir Traffic Management and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207