Integrated Airline Crew Pairing and Crew Assignment by Dynamic Constraint Aggregation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Traditionally, the airline crew scheduling problem has been decomposed into a crew pairing problem and a crew assignment problem, both of which are solved sequentially. The first consists of generating a set of least-cost crew pairings (sequences of flights starting and ending at the same crew base) that cover all flights. The second aims at finding monthly schedules (sequences of pairings) for crew members that cover all pairings previously built. Pairing and schedule construction must respect all safety and collective agreement rules. In this paper, we focus on the pilot crew scheduling problem in a bidline context where anonymous schedules must be built for pilots and high fixed costs are considered to minimize the number of scheduled pilots. We propose a model that completely integrates the crew pairing and crew assignment problems, and we develop a combined column generation/dynamic constraint aggregation method for solving them. Computational results on real-life data show that integrating crew pairing and crew assignment can yield significant savings—on average, 3.37% on the total cost and 5.54% on the number of schedules for the 7 tested instances. The integrated approach, however, requires much higher computational times than the sequential approach.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it