The Value of Flexibility in Robust Location–Transportation Problems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article studies a capacitated fixed-charge multiperiod location–transportation problem in which, while the location and capacity of each facility must be determined immediately, the determination of the final production and distribution of products can be delayed until actual orders are received in each period. In contexts where little is known about future demand, robust optimization, namely using a budgeted uncertainty set, becomes a natural method for identifying meaningful decisions. Unfortunately, it is well known that these types of multiperiod robust decision problems are computationally intractable. To overcome this difficulty, we propose a set of tractable conservative approximations for the problem that each exploit to a different extent the idea of reducing the flexibility of the delayed decisions. While all of these approximation models outperform previous approximation models that have been proposed for this problem, each also has the potential to reach a different level of compromise between efficiency of resolution and quality of the solution. A row generation algorithm is also presented to address problem instances of realistic size. We also demonstrate that full flexibility is often unnecessary to reach nearly, or even exact, optimal robust locations and capacities for the facilities. Finally, we illustrate our findings with an extensive numerical study where we evaluate the effect of the amount of uncertainty on the performance and structure of each approximate solution that can be obtained. The online appendix is available at https://doi.org/10.1287/trsc.2016.0728 .
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 | 0.005 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".