Cargo Capacity Management with Allotments and Spot Market Demand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We consider a problem faced by an airline that operates a number of parallel flights to transport cargo between a particular origin to destination pair. The airline can sell its cargo capacity either through allotment contracts or on the spot market, where customers exhibit choice behavior between different flights. The goal is to simultaneously select allotment contracts among available bids and find a booking control policy for the spot market to maximize the sum of the profit from the allotments and the total expected profit from the spot market. We formulate the booking control problem on the spot market as a dynamic program and construct approximations to its value functions, which can be used to estimate the total expected profit from the spot market. We show that our value function approximations provide upper bounds on the optimal total expected profit from the spot market, and they allow us to solve the allotment selection problem through a sequence of linear mixed-integer programs with a special structure. Furthermore, the value function approximations are useful for constructing a booking control policy for the spot market with desirable monotonic properties. Computational experiments show that the proposed approach can be scaled to realistic problems and provides well-performing allotment allocation and booking control decisions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".