Heuristics for the dynamic facility location problem with modular capacities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper studies the Dynamic Facility Location Problem with Modular Capacities (DFLPM). It generalizes several facility location problems and consists in determining locations and sizes of facilities to minimize location and demand allocation costs with decisions taken periodically over a planning horizon. The DFLPM is solved using heuristics tailored for different scenarios and cost structures. We propose three linear relaxation based heuristics (LRH) and an evolutionary heuristic that hybridizes a genetic algorithm with a variable neighborhood descent (GA+VND). We adapt benchmark instances from the literature to yield several representations of scenarios and parameters structures. Experiments are reported comparing the heuristics to a state-of-the-art mixed integer programming (MIP) formulation for the problem. We show that the performance of the methods depends on the characteristics of the instance solved. For the benchmark instances, the LRH improved by VND finds solutions within 0.02% of the optimal ones in less than half of the time of the MIP. For the scenarios where construction costs are higher and module sizes are lower, the GA+VND proved to be effective to solve the problem, outperforming the LRH and the MIP. We also discuss the results from a practitioner point of view to identify situations where each method is preferable.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".