Huff-type competitive facility location model with foresight in a discrete space
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Consider a chain as leader that wants to open new facilities in a linear market, like metro.In this market, there is a competitor, called follower.The leader and the follower have established some facilities in advance.When the leader opens new facilities, its competitor, follower, reacts the leader's action and opens new facilities.The optimal locations for leader and follower are chosen among predefined potential locations.Demand is considered as demand points and is assumed inelastic.Considering huff model, demand points are probabilistically absorbed by all facilities.The leader's objective is maximization of its market share after opening follower's new facilities.For solving leader problem, first the follower's problem is solved for all leader's potential locations and the best location for leader is obtained and then, a heuristic model is proposed for leader problem when the leader and the follower want to open one new facility.Computational results show that the proposed method is efficient for large scale problems.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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".