MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3045254800 · doi:10.3390/aerospace7070099

3D Cruise Trajectory Optimization Inspired by a Shortest Path Algorithm

2020· article· en· W3045254800 on OpenAlexaffabout
Alejandro Murrieta-Mendoza, Charles Romain, Ruxandra Mihaela Botez

Bibliographic record

VenueAerospace · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAir Traffic Management and Optimization
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie SupérieureUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCruiseTrajectoryFuel efficiencyComputer scienceShortest path problemAlgorithmPower consumptionFloyd–Warshall algorithmDijkstra's algorithmGraphEnvironmental sciencePower (physics)Aerospace engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aircrafts require a large amount of fuel in order to generate enough power to perform a flight. That consumption causes the emission of polluting particles such as carbon dioxide, which is implicated in global warming. This paper proposes an algorithm which can provide the 3D reference trajectory that minimizes the flight costs and the fuel consumption. The proposed algorithm was conceived using the Floyd–Warshall methodology as a reference. Weather was taken into account by using forecasts provided by Weather Canada. The search space was modeled as a directional weighted graph. Fuel burn was computed using the Base of Aircraft DAta (BADA) model developed by Eurocontrol. The trajectories delivered by the developed algorithm were compared to long-haul flight plans computed by a European airliner and to as-flown trajectories obtained from Flightradar24®. The results reveal that up to 2000 kg of fuel can be reduced per flight, and flight time can be also reduced by up to 11 min.

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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.174
Teacher spread0.167 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations22
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAerospaceSame topicAir Traffic Management and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207