Providing the groundwork for a future, fully-automated hazard discovery process.
Wednesday, 27 June 2012
New page detailing reports!
We are making our deliverables to EUROCONTROL publicly available for download. Please visit the reports page above.
Friday, 8 June 2012
Stage 2 - the real work begins
Stage 2 of our model scenario increases the existing air sector to contain a variety of aircraft and flight paths. Although we are only part way through the implementation of this stage, the increase and variety of traffic has already thrown up a number of problems related to the restrictions and ability of the search to find traffic configurations of interest.
The first big change to Stage 2 was to ensure that the emergency aircraft itself would not get resolved by RAMS. In order to do this, we created resolution candidate rules that look for the aircraft type and decide which of the pair of aircraft will be resolved. In a case that involves the aircraft suffering emergency pressure loss, the other aircraft is always resolved, allowing the emergency aircraft to descend to FL100 without deviation.
This huge increase in the size and complexity of the search space has given us a number of headaches! One is that random traffic permutations are often able to "out jump" those permutations created by the search algorithm, i.e. nudging aircraft along various flight paths by a few minutes does not always result in gaining a significantly higher risk measure than an entirely new initial configuration. This is a feature of a very large search space and we are looking at ways to solve it, including taking a very large initial seeding of scenarios, and afterwards reducing the population to a selection. This would in effect "bootstrap" the search in a productive direction. However, the issue of coverage is likely to remain a vexing issue, as we have no guarantee that the mutation of a particular scenario we reject in the initial seeding would not later go on to gain a high fitness during an evolutionary run.
We will post more results as we get them.
The first big change to Stage 2 was to ensure that the emergency aircraft itself would not get resolved by RAMS. In order to do this, we created resolution candidate rules that look for the aircraft type and decide which of the pair of aircraft will be resolved. In a case that involves the aircraft suffering emergency pressure loss, the other aircraft is always resolved, allowing the emergency aircraft to descend to FL100 without deviation.
This huge increase in the size and complexity of the search space has given us a number of headaches! One is that random traffic permutations are often able to "out jump" those permutations created by the search algorithm, i.e. nudging aircraft along various flight paths by a few minutes does not always result in gaining a significantly higher risk measure than an entirely new initial configuration. This is a feature of a very large search space and we are looking at ways to solve it, including taking a very large initial seeding of scenarios, and afterwards reducing the population to a selection. This would in effect "bootstrap" the search in a productive direction. However, the issue of coverage is likely to remain a vexing issue, as we have no guarantee that the mutation of a particular scenario we reject in the initial seeding would not later go on to gain a high fitness during an evolutionary run.
We will post more results as we get them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)