Continuous Maximum Coverage Location Problem with Arbitrary Shape of Service Areas and Regional Demand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper addresses the maximum coverage location problem in a generalized setting, where both facilities (service areas) and regional demand are modeled as continuous entities. Unlike traditional formulations, our approach allows for arbitrary shapes for both service areas and demand regions, with additional constraints on facility placement. The key novelty of this work is its ability to handle complex, irregularly shaped service areas, including approximating them as unions of centrally symmetric shapes. This enables the use of an analytical approach based on spatial symmetry, which allows for efficient estimation of the covered area. The problem is formulated as a nonlinear optimization task. We analyze the properties of the objective function and leverage the Shapely library in Python 3.13.3 for efficient geometric computations. To improve computational efficiency, we develop an extended elastic model that significantly reduces processing time. This model generalizes the well-known quasi-physical, quasi-human algorithm for circle packing, extending its applicability to more complex spatial configurations. The effectiveness of the proposed approach is validated through test cases in which service areas take the form of circles, ellipses, and irregular polygons. Our method provides a robust and adaptable solution for various settings of practically interesting continuous maximum coverage location problems involving irregular regional demand and service areas.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".