mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

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

arXiv 2606.11017 ↗First posted 9 Jun 2026cs.LG eess.AScited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

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.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 1 of its 37 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 9 Jun 2026.

Builds on

1 of 37 references.

References · 1

  1. 2019Measuring Calibration in Deep Learningcited by 446

Built on by

Not cited yet.