A new alternating heuristic for the (r | p)–centroid problem on the plane

Conference paper
Part of the Operations Research Proceedings book series (ORP)

Abstract

In the (r | p)-centroid problem, two players, called leader and follower, open facilities to service clients. We assume that clients are identified with their location on the Euclidian plane, and facilities can be opened anywhere in the plane. The leader opens p facilities. Later on, the follower opens r facilities. Each client patronizes the closest facility. Our goal is to find p facilities for the leader to maximize his market share. For this Stackelberg game we develop a new alternating heuristic, based on the exact approach for the follower problem. At each iteration of the heuristic, we consider the solution of one player and calculate the best answer for the other player. At the final stage, the clients are clustered, and an exact polynomial-time algorithm for the (1 | 1)-centroid problem is applied. Computational experiments show that this heuristic dominates the previous alternating heuristic of Bhadury, Eiselt, and Jaramillo.

Keywords

Market Share Stackelberg Game Exact Approach Competitive Location Close Facility 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bauer, A., Domshke, W., Pesch, E.: Competitive location on a network. European Journal of Operational Research. 66, 372-391 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bhadury, J., Eiselt, H.A., Jaramillo, J.H.: An alternating heuristic for medianoid and centroid problems in the plane. Computers and Operations Research. 30, 553-565 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Carrizosa, E., Conde, E., Munoz-Marquez, M., Puerto, J.: Simpson points in planar problems with locational constraints. The round-norm case. Mathematics of Operations Research. 22, 276–290 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Carrizosa, E., Conde, E., Munoz-Marquez, M., Puerto, J.: Simpson points in planar problems with locational constraints. The polyhedral–gauge case.Mathematics of Operations Research. 22, 291–300 (1997)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
  6. 6.
    Discrete Location Problems. Benchmark library. http:// math.nsc.ru/AP/benchmarks/index.htmlGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Drezner, Z.: Competitive location strategies for two facilities. Regional Science and Urban Economics. 12, 485–493 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hakimi S.L.: On locating new facilities in a competitive environment. ISOLDE Conference, Skodsborg, Denmark, (1981)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hakimi S.L.: On locating new facilities in a competitive environment. European Journal of Operational Research. 12, 29–35 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hakimi, S.L.: Locations with spatial interactions: competitive locations and games, in: P. Mirchandani, R. Francis (Eds.) Discrete Location Theory, Wiley, 439–478 (1990)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hansen, P., Thisse, J.F., Wendell, R.E.: Equilibrium analysis for voting and competitive location problems, in: P. Mirchandani, R. Francis (Eds.) Discrete Location Theory, Wiley, 479–502 (1990)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hotelling, H.: Stability in competition. Economic J. 39, 41–57 (1929)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kress, D., Pesch, E.: Sequential competitive location on networks. European Journal of Operational Research. (in print)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sherali, H.D., Soyster, A.L.: Convergence analysis and algorithmic implications of twodynamic processes toward an oligopoly — competitive fringe equilibrium set. Computers and Operations Research. 15, 69-81 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Facultad de Matemáticas, Universidad de SevillaSevillaSpain
  2. 2.Sobolev Institute of MathematicsNovosibirskRussia

Personalised recommendations