MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402686017 · doi:10.2514/6.2024-4168

Enhancing Best-First Search Algorithms for Aircraft Ground Trajectory Optimization With Non-Additive Cost Functions

2024· article· en· W4402686017 on OpenAlexaffabout
Adrien Durand, Georges Ghazi, Ruxandra Mihaela Botez

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRobotic Path Planning Algorithms
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTrajectoryTrajectory optimizationComputer scienceAlgorithmMathematical optimizationMathematicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a study conducted at the Laboratory of Applied Research in Active Controls, Avionics, and AeroServoElasticity (LARCASE) for optimizing aircraft ground trajectories at airports using non-additive cost functions. For this purpose, the airport was modeled as an undirected graph composed of nodes and edges, with edge properties varying depending on the aircraft path. Consequently, the value of the cost function can not be determined by summing the cost of individual edges, but it also depends on the overall aircraft path. To address this challenge, a modified bi-directional A* algorithm was developed to find the optimal path between two nodes in the graph that minimizes fuel consumption or taxiing time, while satisfying geometrical constraints. The cost function used in the optimization algorithm was defined as non-additive, making the proposed optimization algorithm suitable for solving more complex problems where traditional Best-First Search (BFS) methods, such as Dijkstra or A* algorithms, fail to provide optimal solutions (considering non-additive cost functions). The proposed algorithm was tested at Montreal (CYUL) Airport using a fuel consumption model of the Cessna Citation X business jet aircraft derived from a Level-D Research Aircraft Flight Simulator (RAFS). The results showed that it was possible to reduce the aircraft fuel consumption by an average of 3.86% and the taxiing time by an average of 4.10%.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.839

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRobotic Path Planning AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207