A Methodological Framework of Human-Machine Co-Evolutionary Intelligence
for Decision-Making Support of ATM
Xiao-Bing Hu, CAUC-ENAC Joint Research Center of Applied Mathematics for Air Traffic
Management, College of Electronic Information and Automation, Civil Aviation University of China,
Tianjin, 300300, China
Abstract
Despite of the success of artificial intelligent
(AI) methods in many domains, there is big
dilemma for AI when applying to air traffic
management (ATM). That is AI researchers have
long stated their AI methods are effective and
reliable enough to handle many ATM problems,
while human controllers still refuse to adopt such
AI methods. We believe the dilemma is not about
whether AI methods is effective or reliable enough,
but about why human controllers should be
replaced by AI methods. In other words, as long as
an AI method aims to compete and replace human
controllers, it will be confronted with the difficulty
of not being accepted by human controllers. To
address this dilemma, this paper proposes a new
thinking about applying AI methods, i.e., an AI
method should be developed in such a way of
assisting human controllers, but never in the way of
competing and replacing human controllers. This
new thinking is called human-machine
coevolutionary intelligence (HMCEI). A AI is more advanced than HI, at least in some areas;
methodological framework of HMCEI is further
developed for decision-making support of ATM, in
order to demonstrate the concept of HMCEI is
practicably possible.
Introduction
Artificial intelligent (AI) methods have
attracted more and more attentions in terms of
replacing human intelligence to make daily-life
decisions for us [1]-[3]. Like in many other
domains, some important concepts of air traffic
management (ATM), such as free flight, NextGen
and SESAR, have put great expectations to AI
technologies [4]-[14]. In the past few decades,
many researchers have stated their AI methods can
make better decisions for ATM, and they have
made enormous efforts to improve human-machine
interface and interaction, algorithmic transparence
and preferential optimization, in order to convince
978-1-7281-7270-5/20/$31.00 ©2020 IEEE
5C3-1
Authorized licensed use limited to: University College London. Downloaded on November 02,2020 at 01:40:19 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
human controllers that their AI methods are safe and
effective to replace human controllers for ATM.
However, human controllers still dominate ATM
operations nowadays. Why?
To answer this question, we might need to look at
a general dilemma about AI. For decades AI
researchers have confidently stated that AI
technologies have already been advanced enough to
replace many human experts for intelligence-intense
jobs, such as doctors, brokers and air traffic controllers.
For example, things such as AlphaGo and Boston
Dynamics have convinced more and more people about
the dawn of an era where AI technologies outperform
human intelligence (HI) in most domains. With such
more advanced AI technologies, however, intelligence-
intense jobs are still dominated by human labors
nowadays. In fact, besides cheering for AI
technologies, more and more people express their
worries, fears and even despairs about AI technologies.
Obviously, there has now come a great dilemma about
AI technologies: On one hand, people start to believe
On the other hand, people reject to let AI to take over
their jobs, even though their jobs cause them enormous
mental pressure due to intelligence-intense nature [15]-
[17].
Through the history of AI development, AI is
often positioned to mimicking and competing HI. This
positioning helped the initial development of AI, but it
also forms the root of nowadays dilemma of AI
technologies. Basically, mimicking and competing HI
implies replacing HI eventually, or in another way of
pessimistic expression, advance of AI might lead to
retrogression of HI. This is obviously not an imaginary
or groundless fear. The proposal for AI taxes by
Microsoft and IBM and the pilot experiments of
unconditional welfare in Northern European countries
have already revealed the curtain of such a vision that
if wish, a human person could live like a pet fed by AI
systems. Some greatest scientists such as Dr Stephen
William Hawking have publically and loudly warned
about the catastrophic impact of advances in AI
technologies.
Is this the ultimate purpose of AI? Is this the
destiny of human beings by developing AI
technologies? We doubt this is the case. The
purpose of AI should be to help us to better
understand HI, and then to improve HI. Thus,
where and why comes the feeling that advances in
AI technologies will lead to retrogression of HI?
Can we get rid of such a feeling? This paper aims to
shed a little more light on these questions by
investigating a new way of applying AI to ATM.
The Concept of Human-Machine Co-
Evolutionary Intelligence (HMCEI)
It has long been an assumption that there are
two forms of intelligence, HI and AI, and it is a
common logic that a job can be done by either HI or
AI, depending on which one is more cost-efficient.
This Boolean logic of 0-or-1 is fundamentally
responsible for the dilemma of AI technologies
nowadays.
Besides HI and AI, might it be possible there is
a third form of intelligence, say, human-machine
co-evolutionary intelligence (HMCEI)? This form
of intelligence does not belong to either human
beings or machines alone, but only exists when both
HI and AI integrate and interact to contribute
together to accomplishing certain sophisticated
missions. In the integration and interaction, HI and
AI do not compete with each other, but co-evolve
by learning from and adapting to each other. In
other words, with the concept of HMCEI, no one,
HI or AI, will be replaced by the other; Instead,
both can even better develop and improve. HMCEI
will be a level of intelligence far beyond either HI
or AI can achieve alone.
We, human beings, are proud of ourselves
because we are intelligent beings. We are basically
pleasured with advances in all kinds of
technologies, because they remind us of our
intelligence and demand more of our intelligence.
However, AI technologies nowadays, although they
also remind us of our own intelligence (and so far,
their advances still rely on HI), seem beginning to
suggest that in future maybe not far, HI will become
not so important as it used to be, or human beings
may still live well even as non-intelligent beings,
5C3-2
Authorized licensed use limited to: University College London. Downloaded on November 02,2020 at 01:40:19 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
thanks to the omnipotence of future AI. Apparently,
this suggestion destroys the foundation of our pride as
human beings, and it makes us instinctively
uncomfortable. This may explain the dilemma of AI
technologies nowadays. If AI technologies continue
delivering this message, should human beings continue
developing AI technologies?
Of course we should continue developing AI
technologies, but it now comes the time that the
message delivered must be corrected. But to be
corrected to what? We can by no way give up our pride
about HI, but we have to admit AI has been
outperforming HI in more and more areas. HMCEI
might provide a harmonious vision easing our
anxiousness caused by the presumed competitive
relationship between HI and AI. Yes, if we apply
Boolean logic to define the relationship between HI
and AI, then we are doomed. But if we assume there is
a third form of intelligence above HI and AI, we might
understand that fundamentally, HI and AI have a
collaborative, or to be more precise, co-evolutionary
relationship. Without the presence of either form, HI or
AI, participating in this co-evolutionary process, the
third form of intelligence, i.e., HMCEI, can never be
achieved. In the framework of HMCEI, basically, AI
studies and analyzes not only problem-specific big data
but also HI, and suggests solutions which are good and
understandable, but not obvious to HI; People gain new
understandings and even develop new knowledge
based on AI suggestions, make final decisions based on
HI, and adjust their behaviors based on new
experience; Then, AI studies and analyzes new data
and new HI based on new human behaviors, and then
updates and improves their suggestions; This is an
endless loop where not only human understandings,
knowledge and behaviors, but also AI suggestions and
performance continue evolving, in order to achieve a
long-term-run, perfect problem-resolving effect in
uncertain, dynamical environments.
It must be emphasized again that HMCEI is
neither HI nor AI. Yes, we already have many human-
machine interacting methods, such as human-machine
interface, decision-making tools, online machine
learning and re-enforced machine learning, but their
purposes are either merely for assisting HI or solely for
improving AI. They might be able to offer some
analogies, but we must be careful not be distracted by
them from the new form of intelligence embodied by
HMCEI. Compared with understanding the new form
of intelligence, either assisting HI or improving AI
become secondary.
Human civilization is advancing on a one-way
journey, and we can no longer go back to the life
without AI technologies. If the destiny of human
beings is not to become pets fed by AI, then we
must find an irreplaceable role for HI in the world
where AI technologies prevail. HMCEI offers such
a position for HI.
From a scientific technology point of view,
HMCEI will provide solutions more reliable and
more sustainable. Imagine people are used to
pressing yes-or-no button to suggestions provided
by AI technologies, but become lazy to understand Figure 1. Three Visions of Development of HI and
how and why AI develops such suggestions. One AI
day, the AI system is accidently powered off and
out of service for a while. What can we do then for
survival after our addiction to AI technologies? A Methodological Framework of
From a social policy point of view, HMCEI HMCEI
reveals a vision that people can well maintain their One might argue that the concept of HMCEI is
dignity and dominance in a world where AI more like of ethics issue rather than a technical issue,
inevitably takes over most jobs. No conditonless unless there is a clear technical path to achieve HMCEI
welfare will be provided, as every person has an practicably. Here, we will explain how to develop an
ultimate job of evolving own intelligence, in order HMCEI system. First, we give a general technical
to improve HMCEI. guide in Figure 2, where the development of an
HMCEI system may have 4 levels to go through.
From a human ethics point of view, HMCEI
reminds us of the two sides of AI technologies, and Clearly, developing an HMCEI system does not
any research activity that focuses on improving mean discarding our previous technologies, because
pure AI technologies should be examined carefully the human-machine interface on level 1 and AI based
and might not be given a go in the first place. Only decision making tools on level 2 have already widely
if an AI research is necessary for serving the existed. The development of an HMCEI system could
development of HMCEI, should it be encouraged and should make a good use of such existing
and sponsored. technologies as starting point. Basically, level 1 has no
decision making capability, and only provides
To sum up this section, Figure 1 gives three
information (but not decision option) to assists human
visions of development of HI and AI. If AI is
controllers to make their decisions. Level 2 has
allowed to replace HI without any restrictions, HI
decision making capability, they can work out some
might not benefit much from the advance of AI at
decision options for human controllers to choose from,
the end. But if we restrict AI technologies due to
and if needed and allowed, level 2 can make decision
our fear, we would probably waste our investments
for actions without involving human controllers.
in AI during the past decades. Only in the way of Actually, most AI methods nowadays are focused on
HMCEI, both HI and AI could continue advancing
level 2, and they are eager to convince people that a
significantly and sustainably.
good decision can still be made even without involving
any human controllers.
Usually, those decision options worked out in
level 2 have nothing to do with the personal
knowledge, experience or capability of a specific
human controller who is on duty to make decision.

5C3-3

Authorized licensed use limited to: University College London. Downloaded on November 02,2020 at 01:40:19 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Those decision options of level 2 are only
dependent of the problem to be resolved. In other
words, for a given problem, no matter which human
controller is on duty, an AI method of level 2 will
always work out a same set of decision options.
Because of the difference in personal knowledge,
experience or capability of human controllers, some
might understand and like those decision options,
while others might not understand or like them.
Figure 2. Four Levels to Develop an HMCEI System
Differently, level 3 aims to work out decision
options not only considering the problem to be
resolved, but also according to the personal
knowledge, experience or capability of a specific
human controller who is on duty to make decision.
This means, even for a same given problem,
depending on which human controller is on duty,
level 3 will work out different decision options, in
order to make sure the human controller on duty can
understand and like such decision options. For
example, for a same given en-route collision
situation, when human controller A is on duty, the
method of level 3 will mainly give suggestions of
speed adjustments, while if human controller B on
duty, then mainly suggestions of heading
adjustments, even although altitude adjustments
might be the optimal solutions to the given en-route
collision situation.
It should be pointed out that the method of level
3 is different from preferential optimization methods,
which require human controllers to explain their
preferences before optimization. Usually, in a
complicated situation, such as many ATM problems,
5C3-4
Authorized licensed use limited to: University College London. Downloaded on November 02,2020 at 01:40:19 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
However, the practice of level 2 is: no matter you
understand or like them or not, you only have those
decision options. For example, for a same given en-
route collision situation, human controller A likes to
apply speed adjustments, and human controller B
heading adjustments, but the AI method of level 2
gives suggestions of altitude adjustments, which are
not familiar or understandable to either human
controller A or B.
it is difficult, if not impossible, for human controllers
to notice and then explain their own preferences.
Sometimes, the preferences expressed explicitly by
human controllers are actually opposite to their
subconscious preferences, which largely determine
the real actions of human controllers. Therefore, the
method of level 3 should not rely on descriptions or
expressions of human controllers about their
preferences, but must be able to find out the
preferences of human controllers by its own online
learning capability.
It should also be emphasized that the method of
level 3 is different from online learning AI
technologies, which mainly focus on learning those
time-varying features of a given problem, but not the
behaviors of human controllers who need to make
decisions to resolve the problem. This is largely
because, for such online learning AI technologies, the
ultimate goal is to get rid of human controllers in the
problem resolving process. So, why care about
learning the behaviors of human controllers, if there
will be no human controllers in future? Differently,
the method of level 3 insists there are always human
controllers in the problem resolving process, playing
a dominant role, and the method of level 3 only plays
a supporting role. Therefore, human-behavior-
oriented online learning capability is crucial to realize
the method of level 3.
Based on the human-behavior-oriented online
learning and customized decision supporting
capabilities of level 3, it is possible that in a long-
term run, human controllers can improve their
understanding, knowledge and capability to resolve
the problem of interest. This means, even without any
AI technologies, human controllers may still be able
on their own to resolve the problem well. In other
words, HI will keep improving on level 4, although
many AI technologies are employed. This is different
from the effect of present AI technologies, which do
not care about whether human controllers can
themselves resolve the problem, as in whose view,
human controllers are supposed to be replaced sooner
or later.
As HI keeps improving, human controllers can
better feedback new knowledge to improve the
design of relevant AI technologies, which in return
help improving HI further. As a result, HI and AI
coevolve in a long-term run. This co-evolving system
of HI and AI is called human-machine coevolving
intelligence (HMCEI). Competing and replacing
human controllers are never the goal of AI
technologies in the framework of HMCEI. Instead,
the goal of AI technologies in the framework of
HMCEI is to help improving HI and at the same time
improve AI itself.
A Possible Realization of HMCEI for
En-Route Collision Problem
Based on the 4 levels about HMCEI in Figure 2,
here we give an imaginary example about how to
realize an HMCEI system for resolving en-route
collision problems in ATM. As is well known, safety
has the highest priority in ATM. A good capability of
resolving en-route collision problems plays a crucial
role in ensuring the safety of ATM, and therefore
have attracted enormous attentions of research[18]-
[22].
5C3-5
Authorized licensed use limited to: University College London. Downloaded on November 02,2020 at 01:40:19 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Actually, many methods of level 1 and level 2 in
Figure 2 have already been developed for resolving
en-route collision problems in ATM. Basically, a
method of level 1 mainly aims to show human
controllers whether and where a collision problem
will occur in a given air traffic situation under a
specific operational decision, so that human
controllers can modify and apply a decision. A
method of level 1 does not find or modify any
decision options, and it is completely the task of
human controllers to work out decision options.
A method of level 2 can work out some decision
options to resolve a given en-route collision problem,
which means, if, say, human controllers are lazy,
then, they do not need to work out on their own a
decision option from scratch, but simply adopt one
generated and suggested by the method of level 2.
Actually, many AI technologies have been introduced
to achieve the function of level 2 in Figure 2.
However, those AI methods for resolving en-route
collision problems seldom consider whether or not
their decision options are digestible or familiar to a
specific human controller on duty. Regardless which
human controller is on duty, those AI methods only
aim to find out the optimal solution to the given en-
route collision problem, as in theory, the optimal
solution should be independent of human controllers.
Now, the question is: if the human controller on duty
cannot understand or is not familiar with the decision
option suggested, how could the human controller be
willing to apply it? Without being applied, all efforts
of those AI methods turn out in vain.
Therefore, here we focus on how to realize the
functions of level 3 and level 4 in Figure 2. A
flowchart to achieve the function of level 3 for
resolving en-route collision problems is given in
Figure 3. Basically, mature and feasible technologies
such as multi-objective optimization and machine
learning methods are employed, in order to work out
some customized decision options which are
digestible and familiar to a specific human controller
on duty, to help the human controller on duty to
understand his/her own decision better, and to further
inspire the human controller on duty to learn some
possible ways to improve his/her decision in future
similar air traffic situations.
 Figure 3. Flowchart to Achieve the Function of
Level 3 for Resolving En-Route Collision
Problems
A flowchart to achieve the function of level 4 for
resolving en-route collision problems is given in
Figure 4. Basically, in a long-term run, an HMCEI
system of level 4 should keep learning every human
controller’s work performance and behavior habits
related to en-route collision problems. The HMCEI
system of level 4 should understand the merits and
demerits of each human controller’s decision-making
behaviors, and make the human controller understand
such merits and demerits, too. The HMCEI system of
level 4 should also guide each human controller to
change his/her decision-making behaviors willingly
towards where his/her HI can support. The HMCEI
system of level 4 will allow human controllers, after
they understand and trust those AI technologies
involved in the system, to adjust such AI
technologies, and the AI technologies should also be
able to make self-adjustments, so that AI can improve
its capability of help improving HI for resolving en-
route collision problems in ATM.
5C3-6
Authorized licensed use limited to: University College London. Downloaded on November 02,2020 at 01:40:19 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Figure 4. Flowchart to Achieve the Function of
Level 4 for Resolving En-Route Collision
Problems
The reported HMCEI system based on Figure 3
and Figure 4 is not a training system, as it needs to be
integrated into the real-world decision-making
procedure of human controllers. Although the
HMCEI system gives suggestions about how to avoid
en-route collisions, such suggestions are not for
human controllers to choose from. Actually, a
HMCEI suggestion should be made in such a way
that considers the individual comfortable zone,
experience, understanding and work habit of a
controller on duty, so that the human controller, by
referring to the HMCEI suggestion, can be inspired
and then make his/her own decision to resolve en-
route collisions. Moreover, a HMCEI suggestion
should help the human controller to better understand
the merits and demerits of his/her own habit-based
decision, and in a long-term run, could guide the
human controller to change his/her decision-making
habit willingly and accordingly, so that the human
controller would be capable of making better
decisions in future even without any AI-based
supports.
Conclusions
To make artificial intelligent (AI) methods more
acceptable in air traffic management (ATM), this
study proposes a methodological framework of
human-machine co-evolutionary intelligence
(HMCEI), whose goal is not to replace human
controllers, but to help controllers to improve both
their understanding of ATM problems and their
capabilities of making better decisions as well. In the
framework of HMCEI, human controllers always
need to make decisions from the scratch by
themselves, and the HMCEI method only aims to
help to improve human intelligence (HI) so that
human controllers can themselves make better
decisions from the scratch whenever necessary. To
this end, this study first introduces the concept of
HMCEI, then describes the methodological
framework of HMCEI, and at last, mainly based on
multi-objective optimization and machine learning
technologies, reports a preliminary attempt to design
a conceptual HMCEI system for human controllers to
deal with en-route collision avoidance in ATM.
There is a long way to go to technically and
engineeringly realize the proposed conceptual
HMCEI system, and future efforts will be made in
this challenging direction.
References
[1] Goodrich, M.T., 2001. Algorithm Design:
Foundations, Anal., and Internet Examples. Wiley.
[2] Russell, S. , Norvig, P. , 2010. Artificial
Intelligence: A Modern Approach, 3rd ed Prentice
Hall.
[3]. Competition on Artificial Intelligence between
Major Countries in the World
[EB/OL].http://www.qianjia.com/html/2018-
07/13_298114.html
[4] Wickens, C.D., A.S. Mavor, R. Parasuraman and
J.P. McGee. Airspace System Integration-The
Concept of Free Flight, National Academy Press.
1998.
[5] Pelegrin, M. Towards Global Optimization for
Air Traffic Management, AGARD-AG-321, 1994.
5C3-7
Authorized licensed use limited to: University College London. Downloaded on November 02,2020 at 01:40:19 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
[6] Brooker, Peter. SESAR and NextGen: Investing
In New Paradigms[J]. Journal of Navigation, 2008,
61(02):195---208208.
[7] Office U S G A . Integration of Current
Implementation Efforts with Long-term Planning for
the Next Generation Air Transportation System[J].
Government Accountability Office Reports,
2010:1-8.
[8] Batchelor D . Comparing European ATM master
plan and the NextGen implementation plan[C]//
Integrated Communication, Navigation, &
Surveillance Conference. IEEE, 2015.
[9] Blundell J , Huddlestone J , Scott S , et al. Flight
Deck Optimization for a Future SESAR/NextGen
Operating Environment[C]// International Conference
on Applied Human Factors & Ergonomics. Springer,
Cham, 2018.
[10] Suo Y, Zhang J, Li J Q. Overview of Air Traffic
Management Mode Based on Track[J]. Electronics
World, 2019(04):107-109.
[11] Hu X B, Wu S F, Jiang J . On-line free-flight
path optimization based on improved genetic
algorithms[J]. Engineering Applications of Artificial
Intelligence, 2004, 17(8):897-907.
[12] Braune R J, Jahns D W, Bittner A C . Human
Factors Systems Engineering as a Requirement for
the Safe and Efficient Transition to Free Flight[J].
Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics
Society Annual Meeting, 1996, 40(2):102-105.
[13] Hoekstra J M, Van Gent R N H W, Ruigrok R C
J . Designing for Safety: the 'Free Flight' Air Traffic
Management Concept[J]. Reliability Engineering &
System Safety, 2001, 75(2):215-232.
[14] Timar S, Varani R, Townsend B, et al. NextGen
for Airports, Volume 1: Understanding the Airport’s
Role in Performance-Based Navigation: Resource
Guide [M]. Washington, DC: The National
Academies Press, 2016.
[15]. Wang J, Zhang Y Z, Zhang Y B. The Impact of
Artificial Intelligence Technologies on Human Jobs,
Reasons and Solutions[J]. Macro Economics Study，
2017(10).
[16]. McKinsey Global Institute. Jobs Lost, Jobs
Gained: Workforce Transitions in a Time of
Automation[R]. McKinsey& Company, 2017
[17] Bloom D E, McKenna M, Prettner K. [ATC][C]// Digital Avionics Systems Conference.
Demography, Unemployment, Automation, and IEEE, 2002.
Digitalization: Implications for the Creation of
[21] Pallottino L, Bicchi A, Pancanti S . Safety of a
(Decent) Jobs, 2010—2030[R]. NBER Working
Decentralized Scheme for Free-Flight ATMS Using
Papers, 2018.
Mixed Integer Linear Programming[C]// American
[18] Dur N, Alliot J M. Optimal Resolution of En Control Conference, 2002. Proceedings of the 2002.
Route Conflicts[J]. Air Traffic Control Quarterly, IEEE, 2002.
1997, 3(3).
[22] Paielli Russell A,Erzberger Heinz. Trajectory
[19] Géraud Granger, Durand N , Alliot J M . Token Specification for Terminal Air Traffic Control:
Allocation Strategy for Free-Flight Conflict Conflict Detection and Resolution.[J]. Journal of Air
Solving[C]// Proceedings of the Thirteenth Transportation (Reston, Va.),2019,27(2).
Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence
Conference, August 7-9, 2001, Seattle, Washington,
USA. DBLP, 2001. 2020 Integrated Communications, Navigation,
[20] Geser A, Munoz C. A Geometric Approach to and Surveillance (ICNS) Conference
Strategic Conflict Detection and Resolution September 8-10, 2020

5C3-8

Authorized licensed use limited to: University College London. Downloaded on November 02,2020 at 01:40:19 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.