A Dedicated Pricing Algorithm to Solve a Large Family of Nurse Scheduling Problems with Branch-and-Price
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we describe a branch-and-price algorithm for the personalized nurse scheduling problem. The variants that appear in the literature involve a large number of constraints that can be hard or soft, meaning that they can be violated at the price of a penalty. We capture the diversity of the constraints on individual schedules by seven generic constraints characterized by lower and upper bounds on a given quantity. The core of the column generation procedure is in the identification of individual schedules with minimum reduced cost. For this, we solve a shortest path problem with resource constraints (SPPRC) where several generic constraints are modeled as resource constraints. We then describe dominance rules adapted to the presence of both upper and lower bounds on the resources and leverage soft constraints to improve the dominance. We also describe several acceleration techniques for the solution of the SPPRC, and branching rules that fit the specificities of the problem. Our numerical experiments are based on the instances of three benchmarks of the literature including those of the two international nurse rostering competitions (INRC-I and INRC-II). Their objective is threefold: assess the dominance rules and the acceleration techniques, investigate the capacity of the algorithm to find provable optimal solutions of instances that are still open, and conduct a comparison with best published results. The most noticeable conclusion is that the improved solution of the SPPRC allows to solve optimally all the INRC-II instances where a four-week planning horizon is considered and 40% of the eight-week instances. History: Accepted by Andrea Lodi, Area Editor for Design & Analysis of Algorithms–Discrete. Supplemental Material: The online appendix is available at https://doi.org/10.1287/ijoc.2023.0019 .
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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".