A Capacitated Collection-and-Delivery-Point Location Problem with Random Utility Maximizing Customers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We consider a strategic decision-making problem where a logistics provider (LP) seeks to locate collection and delivery points (CDPs) with the objective to reduce total logistics costs. The customers maximize utility that depends on their perception of home delivery service as well as the characteristics of the CDPs, including their location. At the strategic planning level, the LP does not have complete information about customers' preferences and their exact location. We introduce a mixed integer non-linear formulation of the problem and propose two linear reformulations. The latter involve sample average approximations and closest assignment constraints, and in one of the formulations we use scenario aggregation to reduce its size. We solve the formulations with a general-purpose solver using a standard Benders decomposition method. Based on extensive computational results and a realistic case study, we find that the problem can be solved efficiently. However, the level of uncertainty in the instances determines which approach is the most efficient. We use an entropy measure to capture the level of uncertainty that can be computed prior to solving. Furthermore, the results highlight the value of accurate demand modeling, as customer preferences have an important impact on the solutions and associated costs.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".