A Model-Free Approach for Solving Choice-Based Competitive Facility Location Problems Using Simulation and Submodularity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper considers facility location problems in which a firm entering a market seeks to open facilities on a subset of candidate locations so as to maximize its expected market share, assuming that customers choose the available alternative that maximizes a random utility function. We introduce a deterministic equivalent reformulation of this stochastic problem as a maximum covering location problem with an exponential number of demand points, each of which is covered by a different set of candidate locations. Estimating the prevalence of these preference profiles through simulation generalizes a sample average approximation method from the literature and results in a maximum covering location problem of manageable size. To solve it, we develop a partial Benders reformulation in which the contribution to the objective of the least influential preference profiles is aggregated and bounded by submodular cuts. This set of profiles is selected by a knee detection method that seeks to identify the best tradeoff between the fraction of the demand that is retained in the master problem and the size of the model. We develop a theoretical analysis of our approach and show that the solution quality it provides for the original stochastic problem, its computational performance, and the automatic profile-retention strategy it exploits are directly connected to the entropy of the preference profiles in the population. Computational experiments on existing and new benchmark sets indicate that our approach dominates the classical sample average approximation method on large instances of the competitive facility location problem, can outperform the best heuristic method from the literature under the multinomial logit model, and achieves state-of-the-art results under the mixed multinomial logit model. We characterize a broader class of problems, which includes assortment optimization, to which the solving methodology and the analyses developed in this paper can be extended. History: Accepted by Andrea Lodi, Area Editor for Design & Analysis of Algorithms—Discrete. Funding: This research was supported by Fonds de Recherche du Québec-Nature et Technologies and Institut de Valorisation des Données through scholarships to R. Legault. E. Frejinger was partially supported by the Canada Research Chair program [Grant 950-232244]. Supplemental Material: The online appendices are available at https://doi.org/10.1287/ijoc.2023.0280 .
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".