Aircrew Pairings with Possible Repetitions of the Same Flight Number
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A crew pairing is a sequence of flights, connections and rests that starts and ends at a crew base and is assigned to a single crew. The crew pairing problem consists of determining a minimum cost set of feasible crew pairings such that each flight is covered exactly once and side constraints are satisfied. Traditionally, this problem has been solved in the industry by a heuristic three-phase approach that solves sequentially a daily, a weekly, and a monthly problem. This approach prohibits or strongly penalizes the repetition of the same flight number in a pairing. In this paper, we highlight two weaknesses of the three-phase approach and propose alternative solution approaches that exploit flight number repetitions in pairings. First, when the flight schedule is irregular, we show that better quality solutions can be obtained in less computational time if the first two phases are skipped and the monthly problem is solved directly using a rolling horizon approach based on column generation. Second, for completely regular flight schedules, we show that better quality solutions can be derived by skipping the daily problem phase and solving the weekly problem directly.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".