MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3135245267 · doi:10.1017/aer.2020.138

New flight trajectory optimisation method using genetic algorithms

2021· article· en· W3135245267 on OpenAlexaff
Radu Ioan Dancila, Ruxandra Mihaela Botez

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Aeronautical Journal · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAir Traffic Management and Optimization
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie SupérieureUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceTrajectoryGridFlight planTrajectory optimizationControl theory (sociology)AlgorithmMathematical optimizationSimulationReal-time computingMathematicsOptimal controlArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper presents a new flight trajectory optimisation method, based on genetic algorithms, where the selected optimisation criterion is the minimisation of the total cost. The candidate flight trajectories evaluated in the optimisation process are defined as flight plans with two components: a lateral flight plan (the set of geographic points that define the flight trajectory track segments) and a vertical flight plan (the set of data that define the altitude and speed profiles, as well as the points where the altitude and/or speed changes occur). The lateral components of the candidate flight plans are constructed by selecting a set of adjacent nodes from a routing grid. The routing grid nodes are generated based on the orthodromic route between the flight trajectory’s initial and final points, a selected maximum lateral deviation from the orthodromic route and a selected grid node step size along and across the orthodromic route. Two strategies are investigated to handle invalid flight plans (relative to the aircraft’s flight envelope) and to compute their flight performance parameters. A first strategy is to assign a large penalty total cost to invalid flight profiles. The second strategy is to adjust the invalid flight plan parameters (altitude and/or speed) to the nearest limit of the flight envelope, with priority being given to maintaining the planned altitude. The tests performed in this study show that the second strategy is computationally expensive (requiring more than twice the execution time relative to the first strategy) and yields less optimal solutions. The performance of the optimal profiles identified by the proposed optimisation method, using the two strategies regarding invalid flight profile performance evaluation, were compared with the performance data of a reference flight profile, using identical input data: initial aircraft weight, initial and final aircraft geographic positions, altitudes and speed, cost index, and atmospheric data. The initial and final aircraft geographic positions, and the reference flight profile data, were retrieved from the FlightAware web site. This data corresponds to a real flight performed with the aircraft model used in this study. Tests were performed for six Cost Index values. Given the randomness of the genetic algorithms, the convergence to a global optimal solution is not guaranteed (the solution may be non-optimal or a local optima). For a better evaluation of the performance of the proposed method, ten test runs were performed for each Cost Index value. The total cost reduction for the optimal flight plans obtained using the proposed method, relative to the reference flight plan, was between 0.822% and 3.042% for the cases when the invalid flight profiles were corrected, and between 1.598% and 3.97% for the cases where the invalid profiles were assigned a penalty total cost.

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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

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 integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations23
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Aeronautical JournalSame topicAir Traffic Management and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207