arXiv:2606.11017cs.LGeess.AS2026-06被引 1

用数据预测航班落地后走哪条滑行道,提升机场运行效率。

Data-Driven Runway and Taxiway Exits Prediction of Landing Aircraft: A Case Study at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport

论文配图:Data-Driven Runway and Taxiway Exits Prediction of Landing Aircraft: A Case Study at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport
图 1 · 摘自论文原文
  • 分两阶段预测航班落地后选择的跑道出口及是否穿越起飞跑道
  • 第一阶段准确率86%-89%,第二阶段70%-74%,关键影响因素明确
  • 模型可解释且校准良好,辅助空管员决策但不取代人工判断

机场地表运行日益成为高吞吐量枢纽的性能瓶颈。本研究以哈茨菲尔德-杰克逊亚特兰大国际机场(KATL)为例,分析进港滑行决策,提出一种两阶段数据驱动的决策辅助系统,模拟空管员工作流程。第一阶段预测飞机选择的跑道出口;第二阶段在已知出口条件下,判断其是否会穿越指定点的起飞跑道或使用绕行滑行道。模型基于ASDE-X地表轨迹、飞机特性、停机位、短时交通流量和天气数据,在多个回溯窗口下训练。对比九种分类器(包括Random Forest、XGBoost、LightGBM、CatBoost),评估指标涵盖准确率、宏F1、精确率-召回率行为、混淆矩阵、Brier分数和期望校准误差。东西向流均显示,XGBoost与LightGBM优于Random Forest。第一阶段准确率为0.86–0.89,宏F1为0.40–0.50;第二阶段准确率为0.70–0.74,宏F1为0.28–0.55。特征重要性分析表明,进近速度是出口选择的主要驱动因素;出发率、穿越率、停机位及西向流中的出口选择是穿越与绕行路由的关键预测因子。少数类仍难以预测,因特征空间重叠,t-SNE与UMAP分析证实此现象。所提框架通过可解释、校准良好的预测,增强空管员态势感知,同时保留人类对最终路径决策的责任。

原文摘要 · Abstract (English)

Airport surface operations increasingly constrain performance at high-throughput hubs. This study examines arrival taxi-in decisions at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport (KATL) and proposes a two-stage, data-driven decision aid that mirrors controller workflow. Stage I predicts the runway exit selected by an arriving aircraft. Stage II predicts whether, given that exit, the aircraft will cross the active departure runway at a designated point or use the end-around taxiway. Models are trained using ASDE-X surface trajectories, aircraft characteristics, ramp destinations, short-horizon traffic rates, and weather across multiple look-back windows. We benchmark nine classifiers, including Random Forest, XGBoost, LightGBM, and CatBoost, and evaluate accuracy, macro-F1, precision-recall behavior, confusion matrices, Brier score, and Expected Calibration Error. Across east and west flows, XGBoost and LightGBM outperform Random Forest. Stage I achieves 0.86-0.89 accuracy with macro-F1 scores of 0.40-0.50, while Stage II achieves 0.70-0.74 accuracy with macro-F1 scores of 0.28-0.55. Feature-importance analysis shows that approach speed is the main driver of exit choice. Departure rate, crossing rate, ramp destination, and, for west flow, the selected exit are the strongest predictors of crossing versus end-around routing. Minority classes remain harder to predict because of feature-space overlap, as shown by t-SNE and UMAP analyses. The proposed framework supports controller situational awareness through calibrated, explainable predictions while preserving human responsibility for final routing decisions.

机场调度数据驱动决策支持机器学习

Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品;中文卡片由大模型生成,请以原文为准。