Deep Reinforcement Learning for Real-Time Ground Delay Program Revision and Corresponding Flight Delay Assignments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper explores the optimization of Ground Delay Programs (GDP), a prevalent Traffic Management Initiative used in Air Traffic Management (ATM) to reconcile capacity and demand discrepancies at airports. Employing Reinforcement Learning (RL) to manage the inherent uncertainties in the national airspace system-such as weather variability, fluctuating flight demands, and airport arrival rates-we developed two RL models: Behavioral Cloning (BC) and Conservative Q-Learning (CQL). These models are designed to enhance GDP efficiency by utilizing a sophisticated reward function that integrates ground and airborne delays and terminal area congestion. We constructed a simulated single-airport environment, SAGDP_ENV, which incorporates real operational data along with predicted uncertainties to facilitate realistic decision-making scenarios. Utilizing the whole year 2019 data from Newark Liberty International Airport (EWR), our models aimed to preemptively set airport program rates. Despite thorough modeling and simulation, initial outcomes indicated that the models struggled to learn effectively, attributed potentially to oversimplified environmental assumptions. This paper discusses the challenges encountered, evaluates the models' performance against actual operational data, and outlines future directions to refine RL applications in ATM.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".