Optimization Letters

, Volume 11, Issue 2, pp 259–270 | Cite as

Improving solution of discrete competitive facility location problems

  • Algirdas Lančinskas
  • Pascual Fernández
  • Blas Pelegín
  • Julius Žilinskas
Original Paper
  • 249 Downloads

Abstract

We consider discrete competitive facility location problems in this paper. Such problems could be viewed as a search of nodes in a network, composed of candidate and customer demand nodes, which connections correspond to attractiveness between customers and facilities located at the candidate nodes. The number of customers is usually very large. For some models of customer behavior exact solution approaches could be used. However, for other models and/or when the size of problem is too high to solve exactly, heuristic algorithms may be used. The solution of discrete competitive facility location problems using genetic algorithms is considered in this paper. The new strategies for dynamic adjustment of some parameters of genetic algorithm, such as probabilities for the crossover and mutation operations are proposed and applied to improve the canonical genetic algorithm. The algorithm is also specially adopted to solve discrete competitive facility location problems by proposing a strategy for selection of the most promising values of the variables in the mutation procedure. The developed genetic algorithm is demonstrated by solving instances of competitive facility location problems for an entering firm.

Keywords

Competitive facility location Discrete optimization  Genetic algorithm 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was funded by a grant (No. MIP-051/2014) from the Research Council of Lithuania.

References

  1. 1.
    Dorigo, M., Gambardella, L.M.: Ant colony system: a cooperative learning approach to the traveling salesman problem. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 1(1), 53–66 (1997). doi: 10.1109/4235.585892 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Eberhart, R., Kennedy, J.: A new optimizer using particle swarm theory. In: Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium on Micro Machine and Human Science, MHS ’95, pp. 39–43 (1995). doi: 10.1109/MHS.1995.494215
  3. 3.
    Farahani, R.Z., Rezapour, S., Drezner, T., Fallah, S.: Competitive supply chain network design: an overview of classifications, models, solution techniques and applications. Omega 45, 92–118 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Francis, R.L., Lowe, T.J., Tamir, A.: Demand point aggregation for location models. In: Drezner, Z., Hamacher, H. (eds.) Facility Location: Application and Theory, pp. 207–232. Springer, Berlin (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Friesz, T.L., Miller, T., Tobin, R.L.: Competitive networks facility location models: a survey. Papers Reg. Sci. 65, 47–57 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Glover, F.: Heuristics for integer programming using surrogate constraints. Decis. Sci. 8(1), 156–166 (1977). doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5915.1977.tb01074.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hakimi, L.: Locations with spatial interactions: competitive locations and games. In: Mirchandani, P.B., Francis, R.L. (eds.) Discrete Location Theory, pp. 439–478. Wiley, New York (1990)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hakimi, L.: Location with spatial interactions: competitive locations and games. In: Drezner, Z. (ed.) Facility Location: A Survey of Applications and Methods, pp. 367–386. Springer, Berlin (1995)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Holland, J.H.: Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems. The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor (1975)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Huff, D.L.: Defining and estimating a trade area. J. Mark. 28, 34–38 (1964)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pelegrín, B., Fernández, P., García, M.D.: On tie breaking in competitive location under binary customer behavior. OMEGA Int. J. Manag. Sci. 52, 156–167 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Plastria, F.: Static competitive facility location: an overview of optimisation approaches. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 129(3), 461–470 (2001)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    ReVelle, C.S., Eiselt, H.A., Daskin, M.S.: A bibliography for some fundamental problem categories in discrete location science. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 184(3), 248–259 (2008)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Serra, D., ReVelle, C.: Competitive location in discrete space. In: Drezner, Z. (ed.) Facility Location: A Survey of Applications and Methods, pp. 367–386. Springer, Berlin (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Shaikh, A., Salhi, S., Ndiaye, M.: New MAXCAP related problems: formulation and model resolution. Comput. Ind. Eng. 85(3), 817–848 (2015)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Suárez-Vega, R., Santos-Penate, D.R., Dorta-Gonzalez, P.: Discretization and resolution of the (\(r|{X}_p\))-medianoid problem involving quality criteria. TOP 12(1), 111–133 (2004)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Törn, A., Žilinskas, A.: Global Optimization. Springer, New York (1989)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Algirdas Lančinskas
    • 1
  • Pascual Fernández
    • 2
  • Blas Pelegín
    • 2
  • Julius Žilinskas
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Mathematics and InformaticsVilnius UniversityVilniusLithuania
  2. 2.Department of Statistics and Operations ResearchUniversity of MurciaMurciaSpain

Personalised recommendations