MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414683292 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.19155

Relative Explanations for Contextual Problems with Endogenous Uncertainty: An Application to Competitive Facility Location

2025· preprint· en· W4414683292 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jasone Ramírez-Ayerbe, Emma Frejinger

Bibliographic record

VenueArXiv.org · 2025
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicRisk and Portfolio Optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCounterfactual thinkingCovariateComputationMinificationFacility location problemRegularization (linguistics)Optimization problemWork (physics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we consider a contextual stochastic optimization problem in which unknown parameters follow distributions that depend on contextual covariates and decisions. The problem is motivated by transportation infrastructure decisions such as facility location or network design. In such high-stakes settings, decisions must often be communicated, justified, and reconsidered under alternative stakeholder requirements. To this end, we propose a framework for computing relative counterfactual explanations. These explanations identify the smallest changes in the covariates required for a solution to satisfy prescribed constraints while limiting the performance loss to a controlled level. Whereas relative explanations have been introduced in prior literature, to the best of our knowledge, this is the first work focusing on problems with binary decision variables and endogenous uncertainty. We propose a methodology that uses the Wasserstein distance as a regularization term in the objective. Beyond improving tractability, this regularization yields explanations with desirable structural properties: it produces sparser counterfactuals, induces smoother transitions in the underlying choice distributions, and keeps the counterfactual behavior close to realistic demand patterns. We illustrate the method using a choice-based competitive facility location problem and present numerical experiments that demonstrate its ability to efficiently compute sparse, plausible, and interpretable explanations. We further validate the framework on a real-world case study of electric vehicle charging station planning in Montreal, where the explanations reveal the minimal capacity investments and environmental conditions required to justify including a candidate location in the charging network.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.877
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.166
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.205 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArXiv.orgSame topicRisk and Portfolio OptimizationFrench-language works237,207