Social Optimal Location of Facilities with Fixed Servers, Stochastic Demand, and Congestion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We consider two capacity choice scenarios for the optimal location of facilities with fixed servers, stochastic demand, and congestion. Motivating applications include virtual call centers, consisting of geographically dispersed centers, walk‐in health clinics, motor vehicle inspection stations, automobile emissions testing stations, and internal service systems. The choice of locations for such facilities influences both the travel cost and waiting times of users. In contrast to most previous research, we explicitly embed both customer travel/connection and delay costs in the objective function and solve the location–allocation problem and choose facility capacities simultaneously. The choice of capacity for a facility that is viewed as a queueing system with Poisson arrivals and exponential service times could mean choosing a service rate for the servers (Scenario 1) or choosing the number of servers (Scenario 2). We express the optimal service rate in closed form in Scenario 1 and the (asymptotically) optimal number of servers in closed form in Scenario 2. This allows us to eliminate both the number of servers and the service rates from the optimization problems, leading to tractable mixed‐integer nonlinear programs. Our computational results show that both problems can be solved efficiently using a Lagrangian relaxation optimization procedure.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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 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".