Ground Delay Program Planning Using Markov Decision Processes

被引:4
|
作者
Cox, Jonathan [1 ]
Kochenderfer, Mykel J. [1 ]
机构
[1] Stanford Univ, Dept Aeronaut & Astronaut, 496 Lomita Mall, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
来源
关键词
TRAFFIC FLOW MANAGEMENT; HOLDING PROBLEM;
D O I
10.2514/1.I010387
中图分类号
V [航空、航天];
学科分类号
08 ; 0825 ;
摘要
This paper compares three approaches for selecting planned airport acceptance rates in the single-airport ground-holding problem: the Ball et al. model, the Richetta-Odoni dynamic model, and an approach based on approximate dynamic programming. Selecting planned airport acceptance rates is motivated by current practice of ground delay program planning under collaborative decision making. The approaches were evaluated using real flight schedules and landing capacity data from Newark Liberty International and San Francisco International Airports. It is shown that planned airport acceptance rates can be determined from the decision variables of the Richetta-Odoni dynamic model. The approximate dynamic programming solution, introduced by the authors, is found by posing a model that evaluates planned airport acceptance as a Markov decision process. The dynamic Richetta-Odoni and approximate dynamic programming approaches were found to produce similar solutions, and both dominated the Ball et al. model. The Richetta-Odoni dynamic model is computationally more efficient, finding solutions 10 times faster than approximate dynamic programming, although the approximate dynamic programming approach can more easily incorporate complex objectives. Surprisingly, the performance of all three approaches did not change significantly when evaluated using different models for collaborative decision-making procedures. This observation suggests that modeling collaborative decision making may not be important for selecting near-optimal planned airport acceptance rates.
引用
收藏
页码:134 / 142
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Planning using hierarchical constrained Markov decision processes
    Seyedshams Feyzabadi
    Stefano Carpin
    Autonomous Robots, 2017, 41 : 1589 - 1607
  • [2] Planning using hierarchical constrained Markov decision processes
    Feyzabadi, Seyedshams
    Carpin, Stefano
    AUTONOMOUS ROBOTS, 2017, 41 (08) : 1589 - 1607
  • [3] Planning with Abstract Markov Decision Processes
    Gopalan, Nakul
    desJardins, Marie
    Littman, Michael L.
    MacGlashan, James
    Squire, Shawn
    Tellex, Stefanie
    Winder, John
    Wong, Lawson L. S.
    TWENTY-SEVENTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON AUTOMATED PLANNING AND SCHEDULING, 2017, : 480 - 488
  • [4] Preference Planning for Markov Decision Processes
    Li, Meilun
    She, Zhikun
    Turrini, Andrea
    Zhang, Lijun
    PROCEEDINGS OF THE TWENTY-NINTH AAAI CONFERENCE ON ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, 2015, : 3313 - 3319
  • [5] Optimistic planning in Markov decision processes using a generative model
    Szorenyi, Balazs
    Kedenburg, Gunnar
    Munos, Remi
    ADVANCES IN NEURAL INFORMATION PROCESSING SYSTEMS 27 (NIPS 2014), 2014, 27
  • [6] Robust motion planning using Markov Decision Processes and quadtree decomposition
    Burlet, J
    Aycard, O
    Fraichard, T
    2004 IEEE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON ROBOTICS AND AUTOMATION, VOLS 1- 5, PROCEEDINGS, 2004, : 2820 - 2825
  • [7] Matchings in Connection with Ground Delay Program Planning
    Ball, Michael
    Dahl, Geir
    Vossen, Thomas
    NETWORKS, 2009, 53 (03) : 293 - 306
  • [8] Ground delay program planning: Delay, equity, and computational complexity
    Kuhn, Kenneth D.
    TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH PART C-EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES, 2013, 35 : 193 - 203
  • [9] Robust path planning for flexible needle insertion using Markov decision processes
    Xiaoyu Tan
    Pengqian Yu
    Kah-Bin Lim
    Chee-Kong Chui
    International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery, 2018, 13 : 1439 - 1451
  • [10] Robust path planning for flexible needle insertion using Markov decision processes
    Tan, Xiaoyu
    Yu, Pengqian
    Lim, Kah-Bin
    Chui, Chee-Kong
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COMPUTER ASSISTED RADIOLOGY AND SURGERY, 2018, 13 (09) : 1439 - 1451