Collaborative Traffic Management Using Ranked Choice Voting

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Air traffic management systems lack effective methods to optimize airspace utilization while considering the operational objectives of multiple aircraft operators, leading to inefficient resource allocation and potential disruptions due to limited insight into operators' objectives.

Innovation Solution

A collaborative method that calculates multiple optimization solutions for assigning airspace resources, allowing aircraft operators to rank preferences using a ranked choice voting schema, ensuring fairness and efficiency in resource allocation.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Reliability

If iterative optimization negotiation between aircraft operators and ATM authority is used to resolve airspace conflicts, then the operators' objectives can be adequately met, but the computational complexity becomes intractable and the process is complicated

Engineering Contradiction:

Improveadequacy of meeting operators' objectivesVSAvoidcomputational complexity

Core Design Contradiction:

ReliabilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent segments the optimization process into two distinct phases: (1) The ATM authority independently generates multiple candidate solutions using computational optimization algorithms, and (2) Aircraft operators rank these pre-generated solutions based on their operational objectives. This segmentation eliminates the need for iterative negotiation while ensuring both computational tractability and adherence to operator preferences.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The ATM authority performs preliminary optimization calculations to generate a set of candidate solutions before presenting them to aircraft operators. This preliminary action resolves the computational complexity issue by performing all heavy calculations upfront, allowing operators to simply rank the provided options without engaging in computationally intensive iterative negotiations.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #10Preliminary action

2Productivity

If traditional ATM systems assign airspace without insight into operators' objectives, then computational operations remain simple, but resource allocation efficiency and fairness deteriorate

Engineering Contradiction:

Improveairspace utilization efficiencyVSAvoidsystem complexity

Core Design Contradiction:

ProductivityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent implements a feedback mechanism where aircraft operators rank the candidate solutions provided by the ATM authority. This feedback loop allows the system to incorporate operator preferences and objectives into the final assignment without requiring complex iterative negotiations, thereby improving resource allocation efficiency while maintaining computational simplicity.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #23Feedback

Solution Approach 2:

The system uses a ranked-choice voting schema as an intermediary mechanism between the ATM authority's optimization algorithms and the final resource allocation. This intermediary allows operator preferences to be systematically incorporated into the assignment process, improving fairness and efficiency without significantly increasing system complexity.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

3Reliability

If multiple optimization solutions are calculated and presented to operators for ranking, then fairness and equality among operators improve, but communication overhead increases

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvefairness and equality among operatorsVSAvoidcommunication overhead

Core Design Contradiction:

ReliabilityVSLoss of information

Solution Approach 1:

Instead of presenting all possible solutions or requiring exhaustive negotiations, the system calculates a limited set of diverse candidate solutions that are sufficient to achieve fairness and equality among operators. This partial action approach reduces communication overhead while maintaining the benefits of collaborative optimization.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #16Partial or excessive action

4Speed

If real-time optimization calculations are performed under time limits for disrupting events, then response speed improves, but solution quality may deteriorate

Engineering Contradiction:

Improveresponse speed to disrupting eventsVSAvoidsolution quality

Core Design Contradiction:

SpeedVSManufacturing precision

Solution Approach 1:

The system performs preliminary optimization calculations to generate candidate solutions within the time limit, accepting that not all possible solutions can be explored. This preliminary action ensures rapid response to disrupting events while still providing quality solutions that satisfy the time constraints and incorporate operator preferences through the ranking mechanism.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #10Preliminary action

Data Source

PatentUS12154445B2Collaborative traffic management

Publication Date: 2024.11.26 THE BOEING CO

AI summary

The present disclosure provides for identifying several solutions that meet an arbiter's optimization goals and allowing the potential assignees the ability to identify which candidate solution is the best from the perspective of the aggregate assignees (rather than the arbiter's perspective or one assignee's perspective). The present disclosure provides this by calculating a plurality of optimization solutions based on transit requests, providing the plurality of optimization solutions to various entities, receiving ranked selections of the plurality of optimization solutions, and assigning resources based on a highest ranked optimization solution of the plurality of optimization solutions.