Dynamic Facility Location with Generalized Modular Capacities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Location decisions are frequently subject to dynamic aspects such as changes in customer demand. Often, flexibility regarding the geographic location of facilities, as well as their capacities, is the only solution to such issues. Even when demand can be forecast, finding the optimal schedule for the deployment and dynamic adjustment of capacities remains a challenge, especially when the cost structure for these adjustments is complex. In this paper, we introduce a unifying model that generalizes existing formulations for several dynamic facility location problems and provides stronger linear programming relaxations than the specialized formulations. In addition, the model can address facility location problems where the costs for capacity changes are defined for all pairs of capacity levels. To the best of our knowledge, this problem has not been addressed in the literature. We apply our model to special cases of the problem with capacity expansion and reduction or temporary facility closing and reopening. We prove dominance relationships between our formulation and existing models for the special cases. Computational experiments on a large set of randomly generated instances with up to 100 facility locations and 1,000 customers show that our model can obtain optimal solutions in shorter computing times than the existing specialized formulations.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".