A GRASP algorithm for the bus crew scheduling problem
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper proposes a GRASP approach for solving the Bus Crew Scheduling Problem (BCSP) to find high-quality solutions within short computing times. The BCSP described the process related to the assignment of drivers and conductors to a bus company's regular daily operation of a mass transit system, seeking to minimize the cost of operation and, at the same time, the improvement of the working environment by considering the satisfaction of the drivers with the assigned shifts. The BCSP has drivers in charge of covering the demand for shifts, with an assignment that contains several constraints, such as minimum and maximum work blocks, minimum rest days, and shift sequences that must not be assigned. The former GRASP algorithm is proposed with a constructive procedure, a solution repair procedure, and two local search operators. Classical instances from the literature have been adapted for the shift assignment problem by adding a satisfaction variable. Besides, the proposed approach has been tested for a real company operating articulated and feeder vehicles. The results show that the satisfaction function adds value to the assignments, substantially improving the work environment and generating favorable results in terms of time and quality of the solution.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".