Submitted:
20 December 2023
Posted:
21 December 2023
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
- predict congestion in air traffic and recommend alternative routes to minimize delays through analyzing aircraft real-time flight data, weather conditions and other contributing factors.
- compute accurate quantity of fuel required for the complete flight through identifying and processing flight data such as route lengths and altitudes, aircraft type and weight, weather, etc.
- predict probable maintenance faults before they occur, detect potential issues using data from in-service aircraft.
- provide optimal dynamic sector configuration by analyzing data on traffic volume, weather conditions, terrain, and other factors and then determining the most efficient sector boundaries.
1.1. Logical Models
1.2. Geometric Models
1.2.1. Linear Geometric Models
1.2.2. Distance Based Geometric Models
1.3. Probabilistic Models
- a critical review is performed to analyse the problems in state-of-the-art techniques aircraft conflict prediction.
- challenges are identified in three perspectives namely dataset, model and evaluation techniques.
- the optimal solutions are proposed and identified challenges are mapped with them to form a matrix.
2. Systematic Literature Review
2.1. Keywords Identification
2.1.1. Broader/Narrower Terms
2.1.2. Synonyms/Near-Synonyms
2.1.3. UK/US English
2.1.4. Terminology Change over Time
2.2. Truncation
2.2.1. Pruning
2.2.2. Wild Card
2.2.3. Proximity Searching
2.2.4. Boolean Operators
2.3. Strings Formation
2.4. Databases Selection
2.4.1. Determine Databases
- IEEE
- Elsevier
- Springer
- ACM
- mdpi
2.4.2. Explored Pages
2.4.3. Time Range
2.5. Searching
2.5.1. Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria
- Only those articles are downloaded those must have all keywords of a string
- Articles published before 2020 are not considered
- The articles for which only citation is available are not considered.
- Paper less than 4 pages
- Articles not in English
- Dissertation and thesis are not included
2.5.2. Field Selection
- All fields: The selected keywords may appear in any field. This will return a high number of results.
- Title/abstract: If keywords appear in the title and abstract, the item is likely to be highly relevant. This research relies on well written, descriptive titles and abstracts.
- Keyword: Searches for defined keyword in the author supplied keywords.
2.6. Title-Based Filtering
2.7. Abstract-Based Filtering
2.8. Objective-Based Filtering
2.9. Detailed Literature Review
2.10. Critical Review
3. Challenges
3.1. Dataset
- The dataset used in all is imbalance because the conflicting scenarios occur very rare.
- The dataset is real time but restricted to specific location and time frame which are from developed and high income countries.
- There are less features in available dataset.
- In case of aircraft accident mostly all features are not available in dataset.
- Large amount of data is available in dataset.
- There are datasets of diverse nature such as images, safety reports, past accidents etc.
- Some dataset are structure while others are unstructured and hard to process directly.
- Some dataset like ADS-B are not secure and data gets tempered easily by hackers.
- Biaseness involved when missing values are data is filled by humans.
3.2. Model Used
- 1.
- Only short-term and medium-term trajectory prediction
- 2.
- Mostly Binary classes are used, little work on multiclass predictions
- 3.
- Some work focused factors like wind, weather, human factor during prediction
- 4.
- Few number of parameters are used
- 5.
- Dependencies/correlation between parameters are less focused
- 6.
- most conflict between two aircraft, one study deals four aircraft
- 7.
- uncertainties and risk factor involved in prediction is discussed in few studies
- 8.
- mostly studies performed time dependant analysis
- 9.
- reduction of cost and less computational needs is still a challenge
- 10.
- supervised learning is widely used while unsupervised learning least used
- 11.
- classification techniques are mostly applied while Regression is less applied as shown in Figure 9(b)
3.3. Evaluation Technique
- confusion matrix and is mostly used as shown in Figure 10.
4. Optimal Solution
4.1. Dataset
- Using global resources and information
- New Software and Hardware Technologies for Data Collection
- Real-time Sharing and Transmission of Data
- Using Data from Different Sources and Configurations
- new data collection strategy
- Building New datasets
- Secure Data Collection
- New sampling methods
4.2. Model Used
- 1.
- More parameters for prediction
- 2.
- Temporal Dependence
- 3.
- Ensemble learning
- 4.
- Robust Prediction
- 5.
- Correlation between Parameters
- 6.
- Deep Learning
- 7.
- Probabilistic vs. Deterministic Prediction
- 8.
- Scalable and Integrated approach
- 9.
- New Prediction Methods
- 10.
- Collaborative decision-making
![]() |
5. Conclusion
References
- Chen, Y., Sun, J., Lin, Y., Gui, G., & Sari, H. (2022). Hybrid N-Inception-LSTM-Based Aircraft Coordinate Prediction Method for Secure Air Traffic. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 23(3), 2773–2783. [CrossRef]
- Cheng, C., Guo, L., Wu, T., Sun, J., Gui, G., Adebisi, B., Gacanin, H., & Sari, H. (2022). Machine-Learning-Aided Trajectory Prediction and Conflict Detection for Internet of Aerial Vehicles. IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 9(8), 5882–5894. [CrossRef]
- Förster, S., Schultz, M., & Fricke, H. (2021). Probabilistic Prediction of Separation Buffer to Compensate for the Closing Effect on Final Approach. Aerospace, 8(2), 29. [CrossRef]
- Valdés, R. M. A., & Comendador, V. F. G. (2021). Hierarchical Bayesian Models to Estimate the Number of Losses of Separation between Aircraft in Flight. Applied Sciences, 11(4), 1600. [CrossRef]
- Guo, Y., Sun, Y., He, Y., Du, F., Su, S., & Peng, C. (2022). A Data-driven Integrated Safety Risk Warning Model based on Deep Learning for Civil Aircraft. IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, 1–14. [CrossRef]
- Hu, Z., Gan, X., Wu, Y., & Liu, F. (2022). Research on Conflict Detection in Terminal Area based on Monte Carlo Method. 2022 IEEE International Conference on Advances in Electrical Engineering and Computer Applications (AEECA), 455–459. [CrossRef]
- Jurado, R. D.-A., Comendador, V. F. G., Suarez, M. Z., Moreno, F. P., Gallego, C. E. V., & Valdes, R. M. A. (2022). Predictive safety models for more autonomous systems in Air Traffic Management (ATM). 2022 IEEE/AIAA 41st Digital Avionics Systems Conference (DASC), 1–6. [CrossRef]
- Kong, Y., Zhang, X., & Mahadevan, S. (2022). Bayesian Deep Learning for Aircraft Hard Landing Safety Assessment. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 23(10), 17062–17076. [CrossRef]
- Zhou, S., Hu, Y., Guo, D., Lin, Y., & Yang, B. (2022). Data-driven traffic dynamic understanding and safety monitoring applications. 2022 IEEE 4th International Conference on Civil Aviation Safety and Information Technology (ICCASIT), 496–500. [CrossRef]
- Seyedipour, S., Nobahari, H., & Prandini, M. (2022). A probabilistic approach to mid-term conflict detection with accuracy estimate. Journal of the Franklin Institute, 359(16), 9193–9219. [CrossRef]
- Subramanian, A., & Mahadevan, S. (2022b). Importance sampling for probabilistic prognosis of sector-wide flight separation safety. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 222, 108410. [CrossRef]
- Delgado-Aguilera Jurado, R., Gómez Comendador, V. F., Zamarreño Suárez, M., Pérez Moreno, F., Verdonk Gallego, C. E., & Arnaldo Valdés, R. M. (2022). Assessment of Potential Conflict Detection by the ATCo. Aerospace, 9(9), 522. [CrossRef]
- Ortner, P., Steinhöfler, R., Leitgeb, E., & Flühr, H. (2022). Augmented Air Traffic Control System—Artificial Intelligence as Digital Assistance System to Predict Air Traffic Conflicts. AI, 3(3), 623–644. [CrossRef]
- Pérez-Castán, J. A., Pérez Sanz, L., Fernández-Castellano, M., Radišić, T., Samardžić, K., & Tukarić, I. (2022). Learning Assurance Analysis for Further Certification Process of Machine Learning Techniques: Case-Study Air Traffic Conflict Detection Predictor. Sensors, 22(19), 7680. [CrossRef]
- Pérez-Castán, J. A., Pérez-Sanz, L., Serrano-Mira, L., Saéz-Hernando, F. J., Rodríguez Gauxachs, I., & Gómez-Comendador, V. F. (2022). Design of an ATC Tool for Conflict Detection Based on Machine Learning Techniques. Aerospace, 9(2), 67. [CrossRef]
- Buselli, I., Oneto, L., Dambra, C., Gallego, C. V., & Martinez, M. G. (2023). Data-Driven Methods for Aviation Safety: From Data to Knowledge. In M. Valle, D. Lehmhus, C. Gianoglio, E. Ragusa, L. Seminara, S. Bosse, A. Ibrahim, & K.-D. Thoben (Eds.), Advances in System-Integrated Intelligence (Vol. 546, pp. 126–136). Springer International Publishing. [CrossRef]
- Monteiro, L. B., Ribeiro, V. F., Garcia, C. P., Rocha Filho, G. P., & Weigang, L. (2023). 4D Trajectory Conflict Detection and Resolution Using Decision Tree Pruning Method. IEEE Latin America Transactions, 21(2), 277-287. [CrossRef]
- Yue, M., Zheng, H., Cui, H., & Wu, Z. (2023). GAN-LSTM-Based ADS-B Attack Detection in the Context of Air Traffic Control. IEEE Internet of Things Journal. [CrossRef]
- Xiong, R., Wang, Y., Tang, P., Cooke, N. J., Ligda, S. V., Lieber, C. S., & Liu, Y. (2023). Predicting separation errors of air traffic controllers through integrated sequence analysis of multimodal behaviour indicators. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 55, 101894. [CrossRef]
- Zhou, Z., Yu, X., Zhu, Z., Zhou, D., & Qi, H. (2023). Development and application of a Bayesian network-based model for systematically reducing safety risks in the commercial air transportation system. Safety science, 157, 105942. [CrossRef]
- Yi, J., Lin, L., Nisi, L., & Jintao, W. (2023, January). ADS-B Anomaly Detection Algorithm Based on LSTM-ED and SVDD. In Proceedings of the 10th Chinese Society of Aeronautics and Astronautics Youth Forum (pp. 245-257). Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore.
- Nimmagadda, S., Sivakumar, S., Kumar, N., & Haritha, D. (2020, July). Predicting airline crash due to birds strike using machine learning. In 2020 7th international conference on smart structures and systems (ICSSS) (pp. 1-4). IEEE.
- Wang, Y., Tang, P., Shi, Y., Liu, Y., & Cooke, N. J. (2020, December). Predicting terminal mid-air collisions through simulator experiments of air traffic control. In 2020 Winter Simulation Conference (WSC) (pp. 2536-2548). IEEE.
- Casado, R., & Bermúdez, A. (2020). Neural network-based aircraft conflict prediction in final approach maneuvers. Electronics, 9(10), 1708. [CrossRef]
- Shone, R., Glazebrook, K., & Zografos, K. G. (2021). Applications of stochastic modeling in air traffic management: Methods, challenges and opportunities for solving air traffic problems under uncertainty. European Journal of Operational Research, 292(1), 1-26. [CrossRef]
- Tang, J., Liu, G., & Pan, Q. (2022). Review on artificial intelligence techniques for improving representative air traffic management capability. Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics, 33(5), 1123-1134. [CrossRef]
- Wang, Z., Pan, W., Li, H., Wang, X., & Zuo, Q. (2022). Review of deep reinforcement learning approaches for conflict resolution in air traffic control. Aerospace, 9(6), 294. [CrossRef]
- Pinto Neto, E. C., Baum, D. M., Almeida Jr, J. R. D., Camargo Jr, J. B., & Cugnasca, P. S. (2023). Deep Learning in Air Traffic Management (ATM): A Survey on Applications, Opportunities, and Open Challenges. Aerospace, 10(4), 358. [CrossRef]
- Degas, A., Islam, M. R., Hurter, C., Barua, S., Rahman, H., Poudel, M., ... & Arico, P. (2022). A survey on artificial intelligence (ai) and explainable ai in air traffic management: Current trends and development with future research trajectory. Applied Sciences, 12(3), 1295. [CrossRef]
- Liu, C., Zheng, Q., Chang, J., & Li, Y. (2020). Summary and outlook of 4D track prediction methods. Journal of Mechanical Engineering, Automation and Control Systems, 1(1), 46-55. [CrossRef]
- Okay, F. Y., & Özdemir, S. (2021, October). Real-time Aircraft Tracking System: A Survey and A Deep Learning Based Model. In 2021 International Symposium on Networks, Computers and Communications (ISNCC) (pp. 1-6). IEEE.
- Ribeiro, M., Ellerbroek, J., & Hoekstra, J. (2020). Review of conflict resolution methods for manned and unmanned aviation. Aerospace, 7(6), 79. [CrossRef]
- Wang, Y., & Chung, S. H. (2022). Artificial intelligence in safety-critical systems: a systematic review. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 122(2), 442-470. [CrossRef]
- https://www.icao.int › safety › pages › safety-report (last visited: 31st May 2023).
- Williamson, T., & Spencer, N. A. (1989). Development and operation of the traffic alert and collision avoidance system (TCAS). Proceedings of the IEEE, 77(11), 1735-1744. [CrossRef]
- Hussain, K., Hussain, S. J., Jhanjhi, N. Z., & Humayun, M. (2019, April). SYN flood attack detection based on bayes estimator (SFADBE) for MANET. In 2019 International Conference on Computer and Information Sciences (ICCIS) (pp. 1-4). IEEE.
- Adeyemo Victor Elijah, Azween Abdullah, NZ JhanJhi, Mahadevan Supramaniam and Balogun Abdullateef O, “Ensemble and Deep-Learning Methods for Two-Class and Multi-Attack Anomaly Intrusion Detection: An Empirical Study” International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications(IJACSA), 10(9), 2019. [CrossRef]
- Lim, M., Abdullah, A., & Jhanjhi, N. Z. (2021). Performance optimization of criminal network hidden link prediction model with deep reinforcement learning. Journal of King Saud University-Computer and Information Sciences, 33(10), 1202-1210. [CrossRef]
- Gaur, L., Singh, G., Solanki, A., Jhanjhi, N. Z., Bhatia, U., Sharma, S., ... & Kim, W. (2021). Disposition of youth in predicting sustainable development goals using the neuro-fuzzy and random forest algorithms. Human-Centric Computing and Information Sciences, 11, NA.
- Kumar, T., Pandey, B., Mussavi, S. H. A., & Zaman, N. (2015). CTHS based energy efficient thermal aware image ALU design on FPGA. Wireless Personal Communications, 85, 671-696. [CrossRef]
- Nanglia, S., Ahmad, M., Khan, F. A., & Jhanjhi, N. Z. (2022). An enhanced Predictive heterogeneous ensemble model for breast cancer prediction. Biomedical Signal Processing and Control, 72, 103279. [CrossRef]
- Gaur, L., Afaq, A., Solanki, A., Singh, G., Sharma, S., Jhanjhi, N. Z., ... & Le, D. N. (2021). Capitalizing on big data and revolutionary 5G technology: Extracting and visualizing ratings and reviews of global chain hotels. Computers and Electrical Engineering, 95, 107374. [CrossRef]
- Diwaker, C., Tomar, P., Solanki, A., Nayyar, A., Jhanjhi, N. Z., Abdullah, A., & Supramaniam, M. (2019). A new model for predicting component-based software reliability using soft computing. IEEE Access, 7, 147191-147203. [CrossRef]
- Hussain, S. J., Ahmed, U., Liaquat, H., Mir, S., Jhanjhi, N. Z., & Humayun, M. (2019, April). IMIAD: intelligent malware identification for android platform. In 2019 International Conference on Computer and Information Sciences (ICCIS) (pp. 1-6). IEEE.
- Humayun, M., Alsaqer, M. S., & Jhanjhi, N. (2022). Energy optimization for smart cities using iot. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 36(1), 2037255. [CrossRef]
- Ghosh, G., Verma, S., Jhanjhi, N. Z., & Talib, M. N. (2020, December). Secure surveillance system using chaotic image encryption technique. In IOP conference series: materials science and engineering (Vol. 993, No. 1, p. 012062). IOP Publishing.
- Almusaylim, Z. A., Zaman, N., & Jung, L. T. (2018, August). Proposing a data privacy aware protocol for roadside accident video reporting service using 5G in Vehicular Cloud Networks Environment. In 2018 4th International conference on computer and information sciences (ICCOINS) (pp. 1-5). IEEE.
- Wassan, S., Chen, X., Shen, T., Waqar, M., & Jhanjhi, N. Z. (2021). Amazon product sentiment analysis using machine learning techniques. Revista Argentina de Clínica Psicológica, 30(1), 695. [CrossRef]
- Shahid, H., Ashraf, H., Javed, H., Humayun, M., Jhanjhi, N. Z., & AlZain, M. A. (2021). Energy optimised security against wormhole attack in iot-based wireless sensor networks. Comput. Mater. Contin, 68(2), 1967-81. [CrossRef]










| Ref | Year | Objective | Problems Addressed |
| [25] | 2020 | stochastic modeling applications in aviation | demand and capacity management |
| management of air traffic congestion | |||
| [26] | 2022 | employment of AI techniques for improvement of ATM capability |
history of AI techniques |
| structure of AI techniques | |||
| advantages of AI methods | |||
| applications to several representative ATM tasks | |||
| [27] | 2022 | applications of Deep Reinforcement Learning (DRL) in conflict resolution | basics of conflict resolution |
| construction of DRL | |||
| practical demonstration of DRL in conflict resolution | |||
| [28] | 2023 | Deep Learning (DL) applications for Air Traffic Management (ATM) | solutions are categorized based on DL techniques |
| future recommendations based on the ATM solutions | |||
| open challenges identified for DL applications and ATM solutions | |||
| [29] | 2022 | benefits of AI within aviation/ATM domain | Working of general and ATM eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) |
| exploring need of XAI | |||
| existing solutions and their limitations | |||
| formulate the findings into a conceptual framework | |||
| [30] | 2020 | reviews 4D track prediction technology |
classification of existing prediction techniques |
| combination methods with aircraft track data | |||
| techniques of data mining used | |||
| applicable scope of each method | |||
| [31] | 2021 | survey of aircraft tracking systems | categorize existing techniques according to their approaches |
| development of real-time DL-based Aircraft Tracking system | |||
| [32] | 2020 | review of existing Conflict Resolution methods for manned and unmanned aircrafts | taxonomy to categories CR algorithms |
| working of tactical and distributed framework | |||
| overview of four CR algorithms | |||
| testing of manned and unmanned scenarios |
| Safety | Prediction | of | Air Traffic | Control |
| conflict-free | forecast | aviation | manage | |
| collision less | envisage | aircraft | administer | |
| non-contention | detect | flight | governance |
| Safe |
Predict | of | Air Traffic | Control |
| Safe | Predict | Air Traffic | Control | |
| Safe* | Predict* | Air Traffic | Control |
| Safe | Predict | Air Traffic | Control |
| safe | forecast | Air Traffic | control |
| safe | envisage | Air Traffic | control |
| safe | detect | Air Traffic | control |
| conflict | predict | Air Traffic | control |
| conflict | forecast | Air Traffic | control |
| conflict | envisage | Air Traffic | control |
| conflict | detect | Air Traffic | control |
| ….. | ….. | ….. | ….. |
| ….. | ….. | ….. | ….. |
| contention | detect | flight | detection |
| Year | Strings | Database | Pages Explored | Available Articles | Related Articles | Not Related Articles | Duplicate Articles | Total |
| 2023 | Safety Air Traffic Control | IEEE | 3 | 30 | 30 | 0 | 0 | 149 |
| Elsevier | 3 | 30 | 30 | 0 | 0 | |||
| Springer | 3 | 30 | 291 Book | 0 | 0 | |||
| ACM | 3 | 30 | 30 | 0 | 0 | |||
| mdpi | 3 | 30 | 30 | 0 | 0 | |||
| Conflict Air Traffic Control | IEEE | 3 | 30 | 28 | 0 | 2 | 93 | |
| Elsevier | 3 | 30 | 17 | 0 | 13 | |||
| Springer | 3 | 30 | 13 | 0 | 17 | |||
| ACM | 2 | 16 | 12 | 0 | 4 | |||
| mdpi | 3 | 30 | 23 | 0 | 7 | |||
| RiskAir Traffic Control | IEEE | 3 | 30 | 15 | 0 | 15 | 97 | |
| Elsevier | 3 | 30 | 23 | 0 | 7 | |||
| Springer | 3 | 30 | 19 | 0 | 101 Book | |||
| ACM | 3 | 24 | 12 | 0 | 12 | |||
| mdpi | 3 | 30 | 28 | 0 | 2 | |||
| Contention Air Traffic Control | IEEE | 2 | 15 | 10 | 0 | 5 | 36 | |
| Elsevier | 1 | 10 | 6 | 0 | 4 | |||
| Springer | 1 | 10 | 10 | 0 | 0 | |||
| ACM | 1 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | |||
| mdpi | 1 | 10 | 8 | 0 | 2 | |||
| Safety Aviation Control | IEEE | 3 | 30 | 19 | 0 | 11 | 83 | |
| Elsevier | 3 | 30 | 20 | 0 | 10 | |||
| Springer | 3 | 30 | 15 | 0 | 141 Book | |||
| ACM | 2 | 13 | 7 | 0 | 6 | |||
| mdpi | 3 | 30 | 22 | 0 | 8 | |||
| Conflict Aviation Control | IEEE | 3 | 30 | 14 | 0 | 16 | 49 | |
| Elsevier | 3 | 30 | 11 | 0 | 19 | |||
| Springer | 3 | 30 | 8 | 0 | 22 | |||
| ACM | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | |||
| mdpi | 3 | 30 | 16 | 0 | 14 | |||
| Risk Aviation Control | IEEE | 3 | 30 | 19 | 0 | 11 | 69 | |
| Elsevier | 3 | 30 | 17 | 0 | 13 | |||
| Springer | 3 | 30 | 14 | 0 | 151 Book | |||
| ACM | 2 | 12 | 1 | 0 | 11 | |||
| mdpi | 3 | 30 | 18 | 0 | 12 | |||
| Contention Aviation Control | IEEE | 1 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 39 | |
| Elsevier | 2 | 16 | 13 | 0 | 3 | |||
| Springer | 3 | 25 | 20 | 0 | 5 | |||
| ACM | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | |||
| mdpi | 1 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | |||
| Safety Aircraft Control | IEEE | 3 | 30 | 12 | 0 | 18 | 62 | |
| Elsevier | 3 | 30 | 15 | 0 | 15 | |||
| Springer | 3 | 30 | 19 | 0 | 101 Book | |||
| ACM | 2 | 19 | 7 | 0 | 12 | |||
| mdpi | 3 | 30 | 9 | 0 | 21 | |||
| Conflict Aircraft Control | IEEE | 3 | 30 | 12 | 0 | 18 | 44 | |
| Elsevier | 3 | 30 | 5 | 0 | 25 | |||
| Springer | 3 | 30 | 12 | 0 | 18 | |||
| ACM | 1 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 3 | |||
| mdpi | 3 | 30 | 15 | 0 | 15 | |||
| RiskAircraft Control | IEEE | 3 | 30 | 13 | 0 | 17 | 40 | |
| Elsevier | 3 | 30 | 7 | 0 | 23 | |||
| Springer | 3 | 30 | 6 | 0 | 24 | |||
| ACM | 3 | 22 | 6 | 0 | 16 | |||
| mdpi | 3 | 30 | 8 | 0 | 22 | |||
| ContentionAircraft Control | IEEE | 1 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 21 | |
| Elsevier | 2 | 15 | 9 | 0 | 6 | |||
| Springer | 3 | 30 | 22 | 0 | 71 Book | |||
| ACM | 1 | 2 | 0 | 2 | ||||
| mdpi | 1 | 6 | 3 | 3 | ||||
| 2022 | Safety PredictionAir Traffic Control | IEEE | 3 | 30 | 25 | 5 | 0 | 78 |
| Elsevier | 3 | 30 | 7 | 23 | 0 | |||
| Springer | 3 | 30 | 16 | 14 | 0 | |||
| ACM | 2 | 15 | 4 | 11 | 0 | |||
| mdpi | 3 | 30 | 26 | 4 | 0 | |||
| Conflict predictionAir Traffic Control | IEEE | 3 | 30 | 15 | 5 | 10 | 41 | |
| Elsevier | 3 | 30 | 14 | 12 | 4 | |||
| Springer | 3 | 30 | 6 | 18 | 6 | |||
| ACM | 1 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 0 | |||
| mdpi | 3 | 30 | 6 | 10 | 14 | |||
| 2021 | Safety PredictionAir Traffic Control | IEEE | 3 | 30 | 20 | 10 | 0 | 94 |
| Elsevier | 3 | 30 | 23 | 7 | 0 | |||
| Springer | 3 | 30 | 23 | 7 | 1 | |||
| ACM | 2 | 15 | 7 | 8 | 0 | |||
| mdpi | 3 | 30 | 21 | 9 | 0 | |||
| Conflict predictionAir Traffic Control | IEEE | 3 | 30 | 11 | 9 | 10 | 36 | |
| Elsevier | 3 | 30 | 18 | 4 | 8 | |||
| Springer | 3 | 30 | 5 | 18 | 7 | |||
| ACM | 1 | 8 | 0 | 6 | 2 | |||
| mdpi | 3 | 30 | 2 | 18 | 10 |
| Ref | coordinate/ trajectory |
time-to-fly/ touch down |
Separation Minima | safety performance | controller/ pilot role |
data attacks | risk prediction | conflict prediction |
| [1] | Y | |||||||
| [2] | Y | |||||||
| [3] | Y | |||||||
| [4] | Y | |||||||
| [5] | Y | Y | ||||||
| [6] | Y | |||||||
| [7] | Y | |||||||
| [8] | Y | |||||||
| [9] | Y | |||||||
| [10] | Y | |||||||
| [11] | Y | |||||||
| [12] | Y | |||||||
| [13] | Y | |||||||
| [14] | Y | Y | ||||||
| [15] | Y | |||||||
| [16] | Y | Y | ||||||
| [17] | Y | Y | ||||||
| [18] | Y | |||||||
| [19] | Y | |||||||
| [20] | Y | |||||||
| [21] | Y | |||||||
| [22] | Y | Y | ||||||
| [23] | Y | Y | ||||||
| [24] | Y |
| Database | Pre-Filtering Count (ZOTERO) | Title-based Filtering Count | Abstract-based Filtering Count | |||||||||
| 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | |
| IEEE | 22 | 25 | 45 | 178 | 5 | 31 | 40 | 18 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 2 |
| Elsevier | 12 | 32 | 24 | 199 | 4 | 32 | 24 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| Springer | 11 | 29 | 21 | 182 | 3 | 29 | 21 | 13 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| ACM | 2 | 6 | 4 | 79 | 0 | 6 | 4 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| mdpi | 30 | 23 | 64 | 268 | 1 | 23 | 32 | 14 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 0 |
| Total | 77 | 115 | 158 | 906 | 13 | 121 | 121 | 58 | 3 | 4 | 12 | 5 |
| Ref | ANN | RNN | CNN | LSTM | QRF | RF | BI | DT | GB | C | R | MC | BM | LR | LS | GP | P | KB | KNN |
| [1] | Y | Y | |||||||||||||||||
| [2] | Y | Y | Y | ||||||||||||||||
| [3] | Y | ||||||||||||||||||
| [4] | Y | ||||||||||||||||||
| [5] | Y | ||||||||||||||||||
| [6] | Y | Y | Y | ||||||||||||||||
| [7] | Y | ||||||||||||||||||
| [8] | Y | Y | |||||||||||||||||
| [9] | Y | Y | |||||||||||||||||
| [10] | Y | ||||||||||||||||||
| [11] | Y | ||||||||||||||||||
| [12] | Y | ||||||||||||||||||
| [13] | Y | ||||||||||||||||||
| [14] | Y | ||||||||||||||||||
| [15] | Y | Y | |||||||||||||||||
| [16] | Y | ||||||||||||||||||
| [17] | Y | Y | |||||||||||||||||
| [18] | Y | ||||||||||||||||||
| [19] | Y | ||||||||||||||||||
| [20] | Y | ||||||||||||||||||
| [21] | Y | ||||||||||||||||||
| [22] | Y | Y | Y | ||||||||||||||||
| [23] | Y | ||||||||||||||||||
| [24] | Y |
| Ref. | Year | Scheme | Strengths | Limitations |
| [1] | 2022 | Inception | safe aircraft coordinate prediction scheme | ADS-B signal carries limited information |
| LSTM | widens the perception field | CNN do not encode position and orientation | ||
| CNN | time window based continuous time points | CNN needs a lot of training data to be effective | ||
| CNN is accurate at image recognition and classification | CNNs tend to be much slower | |||
| CNN offers Weight sharing | long training time for multi layer CNN | |||
| CNN minimize computation via regular neural network | CNN recognize image as clusters of pixels | |||
| CNNs uses same knowledge across all image locations | LSTM small context window size(input’s set) | |||
| LSTM handles long-term dependencies effectively | LSTM do not deal big temporal dependencies | |||
| LSTM is less susceptible to vanishing gradient problem | ||||
| LSTM handles complex sequential data efficiently | ||||
| LSTM NN make prediction more accurate | ||||
| [2] | 2022 | LSTM | geometric and grouping-based conflicts detection | slow for mid and long-term trajectory prediction |
| CNN | effective short-term trajectory predictions | ADS-B signal carries limited information | ||
| LS | trajectory prediction accuracy’s impacts are discussed | less reliable neural network | ||
| CNN is accurate at image recognition and classification | CNN do not encode position and orientation | |||
| CNN offers Weight sharing | CNN needs a lot of training data to be effective | |||
| CNN minimize computation via regular neural network | CNNs tend to be much slower | |||
| CNNs uses same knowledge across all image locations | long training time for multi layer CNN | |||
| LSTM handles long-term dependencies effectively | CNN recognize image as clusters of pixels | |||
| LSTM is less susceptible to vanishing gradient problem | LSTM small context window size(input’s set) | |||
| LSTM models complex sequential data efficiently | LSTM do not deal big temporal dependencies | |||
| LSTM NN make prediction more accurate | ||||
| [3] | 2021 | QRF | a tool for arrival time-to-fly prediction | slow for trade-off between two scenarios |
| specific needs of the use case based prediction | considers aircraft present state and weather | |||
| QRF gives non-parametric estimates of median and quantile predicted value | QRF not evaluated for variable length of time-series input | |||
| QRF focus model uncertainty | ||||
| [4] | 2021 | BI (R) | safety prediction for European airspace | only for European Airspace |
| compatible with reduced data and expert’s opinions | considers only four parameters | |||
| captures hierarchical dependencies between parameters | BI does not inform about prior selection | |||
| BI has high statistical capacity in low probability events | BI makes posterior distributions largely influenced by priors | |||
| BI combines prior information with data | BI gives high computational cost for models with large number of parameters | |||
| BI convenient for hierarchical models and missing data | ||||
| BI provides exact inferences for conditional on data | ||||
| [5] | 2022 | LSTM | combines fault diagnosis and risk theory | lacks time-constrained dynamic risk analysis |
| integrates real-time data and post-flight failure data | do not address correlation between failures | |||
| verify the accuracy of the prediction | LSTM small context window size(input’s set) | |||
| LSTM handles long-term dependencies effectively | LSTM do not deal big temporal dependencies | |||
| LSTM is less susceptible to vanishing gradient problem | ||||
| LSTM models complex sequential data efficiently | ||||
| LSTM NN make prediction more accurate | ||||
| [6] | 2022 | MC | simulation based real cases are considered | only considers influence of wind |
| GP | MC provides multiple probability and outcomes from large pool of random data samples | Considers only two aircraft | ||
| BM | MC offers clearer picture than a deterministic forecast | MC results are highly dependent on the input values and distribution | ||
| SDE detects actual states in a model from data | MC take excessive computational powers | |||
| SDE prediction remains close to data even when model parameters are incorrect | SDE may not have solutions that can be expressed in terms of elementary functions | |||
| SDE requires substantial mathematical machinery to understand at any depth | ||||
| [7] | 2022 | BI | keeps the number of adverse outputs low | only two high relevance variables |
| varying input conditions | aircraft operation variables not considered | |||
| BI’s high statistical capacity in low probability events | BI does not inform about prior selection | |||
| BI combines prior information with data | BI makes posterior distributions largely influenced by priors | |||
| BI convenient for hierarchical models and missing data | BI gives high computational cost for models with large number of parameters | |||
| BI provides exact inferences for conditional on data | ||||
| [8] | 2022 | BI | model dimension is decreased by increasing relevance and reducing redundancy | constructed for a particular airport |
| RNN | a regression model to address class imbalance problem | runway configurations often vary | ||
| gives information about severity of hard landing | data is used from only one aircraft type | |||
| RNN is dynamic and computationally powerful | does not estimate reference speed | |||
| RNN is capable of approximating arbitrary nonlinear dynamic systems with arbitrary precision | poor performance when data is not adequate | |||
| RNN remembers each information through time | RNN has vanishing and exploding gradient | |||
| LSTM NN make prediction more accurate | RNN training is difficult | |||
| probabilistic NN training by Bayesian approach supports risk-informed decision making | RNN can not compute long sequences for tanh and relu activation functions | |||
| BI has high statistical capacity in low probability events | BI does not inform about prior selection | |||
| BI combines prior information with data | BI makes posterior distributions largely influenced by priors | |||
| BI convenient for hierarchical models and missing data | BI gives high computational cost for models with large number of parameters | |||
| BI provides exact inferences for conditional on data | ||||
| [9] | 2022 | RNN | clarify key air traffic operations for safety monitoring | RNN has vanishing and exploding gradient |
| CNN | RNN is dynamic and computationally powerful | RNN training is difficult | ||
| RNN approximates arbitrary nonlinear dynamic systems having arbitrary precision | RNN can not compute long sequences for tanh and relu activation functions | |||
| RNN remembers each information through time | CNN do not encode position and orientation | |||
| CNN is accurate at image recognition and classification | CNN needs a lot of training data to be effective | |||
| CNN offers Weight sharing | CNNs tend to be much slower | |||
| CNN minimize computation via regular neural network | long training time for multi layer CNN | |||
| CNNs uses same knowledge across all image locations | CNN recognize image as clusters of pixels | |||
| [10] | 2022 | GP | less computation time. | estimation error increases during sharp turns |
| accurate conflict probability as numerical approaches | lacks 3D multi-aircraft encounter | |||
| can be easily applied to 3D scenarios | considers wind models | |||
| GP directly captures the model uncertainty | GP are not sparse and uses complete information of features for prediction | |||
| GP prior about model’s shape is provided through selection of different kernel functions | GP efficiency degrades in high dimensional spaces when number of features increases | |||
| [11] | 2022 | BI | handles random variables and process uncertainties | considers only one airspace sector |
| reduced computational efforts | BI does not inform about prior selection | |||
| BI has high statistical capacity in low probability events | BI makes posterior distributions largely influenced by priors | |||
| BI combines prior information with data | BI gives high computational cost for models with large number of parameters | |||
| BI convenient for hierarchical models and missing data | ||||
| BI provides exact inferences for conditional on data | ||||
| [12] | 2022 | BI | identification of variables related to controllers performance | BI does not inform about prior selection |
| BI has high statistical capacity in low probability events | BI makes posterior distributions largely influenced by priors | |||
| BI combines prior information with data | BI gives high computational cost for models with large number of parameters | |||
| BI convenient for hierarchical models and missing data | ||||
| BI provides exact inferences for conditional on data | ||||
| [13] | 2022 | LSTM | a digital conflict detection system is developed | predicts conflicts in sequential flight data |
| large-scale and real time air traffic models are built | LSTM small context window size(input’s set) | |||
| predicts four factors | LSTM do not deal big temporal dependencies | |||
| LSTM handles long-term dependencies effectively | ||||
| LSTM is less susceptible to vanishing gradient problem | ||||
| LSTM models complex sequential data efficiently | ||||
| LSTM NN make prediction more accurate | ||||
| [14] | 2022 | GB | time dependence analysis | GB overemphasize outliers and cause overfitting |
| learning assurance analyses performed | GB is computationally expensive | |||
| GB often provides predictive accuracy | GB is less interpretative in nature | |||
| GB has lots of flexibility | GB influence model behavior as it results in many parameters | |||
| GB has no data preprocessing and handle missing data | ||||
| [15] | 2022 | C | Four-Dimension Trajectory based conflict predictions | operation and environment variables not used |
| R | C is effective in high dimensional spaces | other sources for 4DT predictions as input | ||
| C is memory efficient | C slow real time prediction | |||
| R uses more than two independent variables | C is difficult to implement | |||
| R determines the unbiased relationship between two variables by controlling effects of other variables | C is based on complex algorithm | |||
| R cannot work properly with poor quality data | ||||
| R susceptible to collinear problems | ||||
| [16] | 2023 | RF | RF has easy-to-understand hyperparameters | RF increased accuracy requires more trees |
| RFclassifier doesn't overfit with enough trees | More RF trees slow down model | |||
| RF an’t describe relationships within data | ||||
| [17] | 2023 | DT | a large amount of data is handled efficiently | DT are unstable |
| P | reduce the computational cost economically | DT predictions neither smooth nor continuous | ||
| DT has simple interpretation and visualization | biased DTs are created if some classes dominate | |||
| DT performs better even if its assumptions breach | P sometimes affects the accuracy negatively | |||
| DT works well with numerical and categorical data also multi-output problems | P performance and accuracy depends on data’s nature | |||
| DT is less costly | ||||
| P reduces the size of decision trees | ||||
| P is advantageous in removing the redundant rules | ||||
| [18] | 2023 | LSTM | process airspace flight image frames | can locate anomalous targets |
| integrates flight plan with ADS-B data | LSTM small context window size(input’s set) | |||
| detection of ADS-B anomalous attack in ATC system | LSTM do not deal big temporal dependencies | |||
| LSTM handles long-term dependencies effectively | ||||
| LSTM is less susceptible to vanishing gradient problem | ||||
| LSTM models complex sequential data efficiently | ||||
| LSTM NN make prediction more accurate | ||||
| [19] | 2023 | LSTM | A multi-factorial model and multi-modal system | small sample size |
| An encoder-decoder LSTM network | task complexity design | |||
| LSTM handles long-term dependencies effectively | studies conducted in simulated environment | |||
| LSTM is less susceptible to vanishing gradient problem | LSTM small context window size(input’s set) | |||
| LSTM models complex sequential data efficiently | LSTM do not deal big temporal dependencies | |||
| LSTM NN make prediction more accurate | ||||
| [20] | 2023 | BI | data-driven classification approach is provided with a hierarchical structure | regional incident data is used |
| resource investment optimization with efficiency | BI does not inform about prior selection | |||
| BI has high statistical capacity in low probability events | BI makes posterior distributions largely influenced by priors | |||
| BI combines prior information with data | BI gives high computational cost for models with large number of parameters | |||
| BI convenient for hierarchical models and missing data | ||||
| BI provides exact inferences for conditional on data | ||||
| [21] | 2023 | LSTM | LSTM handles long-term dependencies effectively | LSTM small context window size(input’s set) |
| LSTM is less susceptible to vanishing gradient problem | LSTM do not deal big temporal dependencies | |||
| LSTM is efficient at modeling complex sequential data | ||||
| LSTM NN make prediction more accurate | ||||
| [22] | 2020 | DT | DT has simple interpretation and visualization | over-complex DT do not generalize data well |
| KB | DT performs better even if its assumptions breach | DT are unstable | ||
| KNN | DT works well with numerical and categorical data also multi-output problems | DT predictions neither smooth nor continuous | ||
| DT is less costly | biased DTs are created if some classes dominate | |||
| KB is simple to Implement. | KB Conditional Independence Assumption do not always hold | |||
| KB is very fast | KB has Zero probability problem | |||
| KB gives accurate results if conditional Independence assumption holds | KNN does not perform better on large dataset | |||
| KNN no Training Period and new data adds seamlessly | KNN does not perform better on high dimension space | |||
| KNN is very easy to implement | KNN need feature scaling | |||
| KNN sensitive to noisy, missing data and outlier | ||||
| [23] | 2020 | LR | use historic traffic time series data in different periods | need to consider more factors |
| LR is easier to set up and train | low performance | |||
| LR good differ data outcome are linearly separable | LR fails to predict a continuous outcome | |||
| LR may not be accurate for small sample size | ||||
| LR assumes linearity between predicted and predictor variables | ||||
| [24] | 2020 | ANN | NN is predictive model and automatic learning feature | NN generates a certain output is questionable |
| NN handle large, complex, missing and sequential data | NN is complicated and long development time | |||
| NN exhibits improved performance | NN usually require much more data | |||
| NN handling structured and unstructured data and also non-linear relationships | NN are more computationally expensive | |||
| NN offers scalability and generalization |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

