The operational flight and multi-crew scheduling problem
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper introduces a new kind of operational multi-crew scheduling problem which consists in simultaneously modifying, as necessary, the existing flight departure times and planned individual work days (duties) for the set of crew members, while respecting predefined aircraft itineraries. The splitting of a planned crew is allowed during a day of operations, where it is more important to cover a flight than to keep planned crew members together. The objective is to cover a maximum number of flights from a day of operations while minimizing changes in both the flight schedule and the next-day planned duties for the considered crew members. A new type of the same flight departure time constraints is introduced. They ensure that a flight which belongs to several personalized duties, where the number of duties is equal to the number of crew members assigned to the flight, will have the same departure time in each of these duties. Two variants of the problem are considered. The first variant allows covering of flights by less than the planned number of crew members, while the second one requires covering of flights by a complete crew. The problem is mathematically formulated as an integer nonlinear multi-commodity network flow model with time windows and supplementary constraints. The optimal solution approach is based on Dantzig-Wolfe decomposition/column generation embedded into a branch-and-bound scheme. The resulting computational times on commercial-size problems are very good. Our new simultaneous approach produces solutions whose quality is far better than that of the traditional sequential approach where the flight schedule has been changed first and then input as a fixed data to the crew scheduling problem.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".