Robust Facility Location Under Disruptions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Facility networks can be disrupted by, for example, power outages, poor weather conditions, or natural disasters, and the probabilities of these events may be difficult to estimate. This could lead to costly recourse decisions because customers cannot be served by the planned facilities. In this paper, we study a fixed-charge location problem (FLP) that considers disruption risks. We adopt a two-stage robust optimization method, by which facility location decisions are made here and now and recourse decisions to reassign customers are made after the uncertainty information on the facility availability has been revealed. We implement a column-and-constraint generation (C&CG) algorithm to solve the robust models exactly. Instead of relying on dualization or reformulation techniques to deal with the subproblem, as is common in the literature, we use a linear programming–based enumeration method that allows us to take into account a discrete uncertainty set of facility failures. This also gives the flexibility to tackle cases when the dualization technique cannot be applied to the subproblem. We further develop an approximation scheme for instances of a realistic size. Numerical experiments show that the proposed C&CG algorithm outperforms existing methods for both the robust FLP and the robust p-median problem.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".