Airplane Boarding Method for Passenger Groups When Using Apron Buses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper proposes a method for reducing the time to complete the boarding of a two-door airplane when its passengers are transported from the airport terminal to the airplane using two apron buses. In contrast to other methods that assign passengers to apron buses, our method considers groups of passengers traveling together (e.g. families). In particular, we propose a mixed integer programming (MIP) model that assigns each group of passengers (including each single-passenger group) to one of the two apron buses based on their seating assignments. We assume that all seats on the apron buses and the two-door airplane are occupied. We conduct stochastic simulation experiments with the proposed MIP-based method and with a baseline method that assigns groups of passengers with seats furthest from one of the airplane doors to the first apron bus and assigns remaining groups to the second apron bus. Numerical results indicate that the proposed MIP-based method reduces the boarding time by up to 27.31% when compared with the baseline 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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".