Machine learning in airline crew pairing to construct initial clusters for dynamic constraint aggregation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The crew pairing problem (CPP) is generally modelled as a set partitioning problem where the flights have to be partitioned in pairings. A pairing is a sequence of flight legs separated by connection time and rest periods that starts and ends at the same base. Because of the extensive list of complex rules and regulations, determining whether a sequence of flights constitutes a feasible pairing can be quite difficult by itself, making CPP one of the hardest of the airline planning problems. In this paper, we first propose to improve the prototype Baseline solver of Desaulniers et al. (2020)2020) by adding dynamic control strategies to obtain an efficient solver for large-scale CPPs: Commercial-GENCOL-DCA. These solvers are designed to aggregate the flights covering constraints to reduce the size of the problem. Then, we use machine learning (ML) to produce clusters of flights having a high probability of being performed consecutively by the same crew. The solver combines several advanced Operations Research techniques to assemble and modify these clusters, when necessary, to produce a good solution. We show, on monthly CPPs with up to 50 000 flights, that Commercial-GENCOL-DCA with clusters produced by ML-based heuristics outperforms Baseline fed by initial clusters that are pairings of a solution obtained by rolling horizon with GENCOL. The reduction of solution cost averages between 6.8% and 8.52%, which is mainly due to the reduction in the cost of global constraints between 69.79% and 78.11%.
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 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".