Facility Location: A Robust Optimization Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this research, we apply robust optimization (RO) to the problem of locating facilities in a network facing uncertain demand over multiple periods. We consider a multi‐period fixed‐charge network location problem for which we find (1) the number of facilities, their location and capacities, (2) the production in each period, and (3) allocation of demand to facilities. Using the RO approach we formulate the problem to include alternate levels of uncertainty over the periods. We consider two models of demand uncertainty: demand within a bounded and symmetric multi‐dimensional box, and demand within a multi‐dimensional ellipsoid. We evaluate the potential benefits of applying the RO approach in our setting using an extensive numerical study. We show that the alternate models of uncertainty lead to very different solution network topologies, with the model with box uncertainty set opening fewer, larger facilities. Through sample path testing, we show that both the box and ellipsoidal uncertainty cases can provide small but significant improvements over the solution to the problem when demand is deterministic and set at its nominal value. For changes in several environmental parameters, we explore the effects on the solution performance.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".