A Kernel Search Matheuristic to Solve The Discrete Leader-Follower Location Problem

  • Dolores R. Santos-PeñateEmail author
  • Clara M. Campos-Rodríguez
  • José A. Moreno-Pérez


In the leader-follower, (r|p)-centroid or Stackelberg location problem, two players sequentially enter the market and compete to provide goods or services. This paper considers this competitive facility location problem in a discrete space. To solve it, the linear programming formulations for the leader and the follower are integrated into an algorithm which, in an iterative process, finds a solution by solving a sequence of these linear problems. We propose a matheuristic procedure that provides solutions for the leader via a kernel search algorithm. Taking into account binary and S-shaped customer choice rules, we present the computational results obtained and compare the exact algorithm with two versions of the kernel search procedure.


Competitive location Leader-follower problem (r|p)-centroid (r|Xp)-medianoid Linear programming Kernel search 



This study was partially funded by Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad (Spanish Government) with FEDER funds, through grants ECO2014-59067-P and TIN2015-70226-R, and also by Fundación Cajacanarias (grant 2016TUR19).


  1. Alekseeva E, Kochetova N, Kochetov Y, Plyasunov A (2010) Heuristic and exact methods for the discrete (r|p)-centroid problem. In: Cowling P, Merz P (eds) Proceedings of the 10th European conference on evolutionary computation in combinatorial optimization. Springer, Berlin, pp 11–22Google Scholar
  2. Alekseeva E, Kochetov Y, Plyasunov A (2015) An exact method for the discrete (r|p)-centroid problem. J Glob Optim 63(3):445–460Google Scholar
  3. Alekseeva E, Kochetov Y (2013) Matheuristics and exact methods for the discrete (r|p)-centroid problem. In: Talbi E (ed) Metaheuristics for bi-level optimization SCI, vol 482, pp 189–219Google Scholar
  4. Alekseeva E, Kochetov Y, Talbi E (2017) A matheuristic for the discrete bilevel problem with multiple objectives at the lower level. Int Trans Oper Res 24:959–981Google Scholar
  5. Alexandris GP, Bardis NG (2012) A penetration strategy in a competitive environment, recent researches in applications of electrical and computer engineering. In: Proceedings of the 11th international conference on applications of electrical and computer engineering, pp 132–136Google Scholar
  6. Aras N, Küçükaydin H (2017) Bilevel models on the competitive facility location problem. In: Mallozzi L, D’Amato E, Pardalos PM (eds) Spatial interaction models. Springer optimization and its applications, vol 118, pp 1–19Google Scholar
  7. Ashtiani MG (2016) Competitive location: a-state-of-art review. Int J Ind Eng Comput 7:1–18Google Scholar
  8. Ashtiani MG, Makui A, Ramezanian R (2013) A robust model for a leader-follower competitive facility location problem in a discrete space. Appl Math Model 37:62–71Google Scholar
  9. Benati S, Laporte G (1994) Tabu search algorithms for the (r|x p)-medianoid and (r|p)-centroid problems. Locat Sci 2:193–204Google Scholar
  10. Beresnev V, Melnikov A, et al. (2016) Facility location in unfair competition. In: Kochetov Y (ed) DOOR 2016, LNCS 9869, pp 325–335Google Scholar
  11. Berglund PG, Kwon C (2014) Solving a location problem of a Stackelberg firm competing with Cournot-Nash firms. Netw Spat Econ 14:117–132Google Scholar
  12. Bhadury J, Eiselt HA, Jaramillo JH (2003) An alternating heuristic for medianoid and centroid problems in the plane. Comput Oper Res 30(4):553–565Google Scholar
  13. Biersinger B, Hu B, Raidl G (2016) Models and algorithms for competitive facility location problems with different customer behaviour. Ann Math Artif Intell 76:93–119Google Scholar
  14. Biersinger B, Hu B, Raidl G (2015) A hybrid genetic algorithm with solution archive for the discrete (r|p)-centroid problem. J Heuristics 21:391–431Google Scholar
  15. Borndörfer R, Omont B, Sagnol G, Swarat E (2012) A Stackelberg game to optimize the distribution of controls in transportation networks. In: Lecture notes of ICST, Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on game theory for networks (GAMENETS 2012), Vancouver, Canada, pp 24–26Google Scholar
  16. Campos-Rodríguez CM, Santos-Peñate DR, Moreno-Pérez JA (2010) An exact procedure and LP formulations for the leader-follower location problem. TOP 18(1):97–121Google Scholar
  17. Carrizosa E, Davydov I, Kochetov Y (2011) A new alternating heuristic for the (r|p)-centroid problem on the plane. In: Operations research proceedings. Springer, pp 275–280Google Scholar
  18. Čvokić DD, Kochetov YA, Plyasunov AV, et al. (2016) A leader-follower hub location problem under fixed markups. In: Kochetov Y (ed) DOOR 2016, LNCS 9869. Springer, pp 350–363Google Scholar
  19. Davydov I, Coupechoux M, Iellamo S et al (2016) Tabu search approach for the Bi-Level competitive base station location problem. In: Kochetov Y (ed) DOOR 2016, LNCS 9869. Springer, pp 364–372Google Scholar
  20. Davydov I, Kochetov Y, Carrizosa E (2014) A local search heuristic for the (r|p)-centroid problem in the plane. Comput Oper Res 52:334–340Google Scholar
  21. Davydov IA, Kochetov YA, Mladenovic N, Urosevic D (2014) Fast metaheuristics for the discrete (r|p)-centroid problem. Autom Remote Control 75(4):677–687Google Scholar
  22. Drezner T, Drezner Z (2017) Leader-follower models in facility location. In: Mallozzi L, D’Amato E, Pardalos P M (eds) Spatial interaction models. Springer optimization and its applications, vol 118, pp 73–104Google Scholar
  23. Drezner T, Drezner Z, Kalczynski P (2015) A leader-follower model for discrete competitive facility location. Comput Oper Res 64(C):51–59Google Scholar
  24. Eiselt HA, Bhadury J, Burkey ML (2011) An optimization-based framework for modeling counterterrorism strategies. OR Insight 26(1):7–31Google Scholar
  25. Eiselt HA, Marianov V (2017) Asymmetries in competitive location models on the line. In: Mallozzi L, D’Amato E, Pardalos P M (eds) Spatial interaction models. Springer optimization and its applications, vol 118. Springer, pp 105–128Google Scholar
  26. Eiselt HA, Marianov V, Drezner T (2015) Competitive location models. In: Laporte G, Nickel S, Saldanha da Gama F (eds) Location science. Springer, pp 365–398Google Scholar
  27. Fukuyama K, Kimura J, Ikeda Y (2012) Locating vendors in stackelberg competition in a linear monocentric city. In: IEEE international conference on systems man, and cybernetics, pp 2785–2790Google Scholar
  28. García Pérez MD, Pelegrín Pelegrín B (2003) All stackelberg location equilibria in the hotelling’s duopoly model on a tree with parametric prices. Ann Oper Res 122:177–192Google Scholar
  29. Gentile J, Pessoa AA, Poss M, Roboredo MC (2018) Integer programming formulations for three sequential discrete competitive location problems with foresight. Eur J Oper Res 265(3):872–881Google Scholar
  30. Ghosh A, Craig CS (1984) A location-allocation model for facility planning in a competitive environment. Geogr Anal 16(1):39–51Google Scholar
  31. Guastaroba G, Speranza MG (2012) Kernel search for the capacitated facility location problem. J Heuristics 18(6):877–917Google Scholar
  32. Guastaroba G, Speranza MG (2014) A heuristic for BILP problems: the single source capacitated facility location problem. Eur J Oper Res 238:438–450Google Scholar
  33. G.-Tóth B, Kovács K (2016) Solving a Huff-like Stackelberg location problem on networks. J Glob Optim 64:233–247Google Scholar
  34. Hakimi SL Mirchandani PB, Francis RL (eds) (1990) Location with spatial interactions: competitive locations and games. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  35. Hendrix EMT (2016) On competition in a Stackelberg location-design model with deterministic supplier choice. Ann Oper Res 246:19–30Google Scholar
  36. Hooshmand F, Mirhassani SA (2018), An effective bilevel programming approach for the evasive flow capturing location problem. Networks and Spatial Economics,
  37. Karakitsiou A (2015) Modeling discrete competitive facility location, SpringerBriefs in Optimization, SpringerGoogle Scholar
  38. Kress D, Pesch E (2012) Sequential competitive location on networks. Eur J Oper Res 217(3):483–499Google Scholar
  39. Mahmutogullari AI, Kara BY (2015) Hub location under competition. Eur J Oper Res 250(1):214–225Google Scholar
  40. Majumder P (2008) Leadership and competition in networks supply chains. Manag Sci 54(6):1189–1204Google Scholar
  41. Mansini R, Speranza MG (1999) Heuristic algorithms for the portfolio selection problem with minimum transaction lots. Eur J Oper Res 114:219–233Google Scholar
  42. Marianov V, Eiselt HA (2016) On agglomeration in competitive location models. Ann Oper Res 246(1):31–55Google Scholar
  43. Miller TC, Friesz TL, Tobin RL (1996) Equilibrium facility location on networks. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  44. Miller TC, Friesz TL, Tobin RL, Kwon C (2007) Reaction function based dynamic location modeling in Stackelberg-Nash-Cournot competition. Netw Spat Econ 7:77–97Google Scholar
  45. Plastria F, Vanhaverbeke L (2008) Discrete models for competitive location with foresight. Comput Oper Res 35:683–700Google Scholar
  46. Qi M, Xia M, Zhang Y, Miao L (2017) Competitive facility location problem with foresight considering service distance limitations. Comput Ind Eng 112:483–491Google Scholar
  47. Redondo JL, Fernández J, García I, Ortigosa PM (2010) Heuristics for the facility location and design (1|1)-centroid problem on the plane. Comput Optim Appl 45(1):111–141Google Scholar
  48. Rhim H, Ho TH, Karmarkar US (2003) Competitive location, production, and market selection. Eur J Oper Res 149:211–228Google Scholar
  49. Roboredo MC, Pessoa AA (2013) A branch-and-bound algorithm for the discrete (r|p)-centroid problem. Eur J Oper Res 224:101–109Google Scholar
  50. Sáiz M E, Hendrix EMT, Fernández J, Pelegrín B (2009) On a branch-and-bound approach for a Huff-like Stackelberg location problem. OR Spectr 31:679–705Google Scholar
  51. Santos-Peñate DR, Campos-Rodríguez CM, Moreno-Pérez JA (2019) The generalized discrete centroid problem. Int Trans Oper Res 26:340–363Google Scholar
  52. Santos-Peñate DR, Suárez-Vega R, Dorta-Gonzalez P (2007) The leader-follower location model. Netw Spat Econ 7:45–61Google Scholar
  53. Sasaki M, Campbell JF, Krishnamoorthy M, Ernst AT (2014) A Stackelberg hub arc location model for a competitive environment. Comput Oper Res 47:27–41Google Scholar
  54. Sasaki M, Fukushima M (2001) Stackelberg hub location problem. J Oper Res Soc Jpn 44(4):390–402Google Scholar
  55. Snyder LV (2006) Facility location under uncertainty: a review. IIE Trans 38 (7):547–564Google Scholar
  56. Spoerhase J, Wirth HC (2009) (r|p)-centroid problems on paths and trees. Theor Comput Sci 410:5128–5137Google Scholar
  57. Teraoka Y, Osumi S, Hohjo H (2003) Some stackelberg type location game. Computers and Mathematics with Applications 46:1147–1154Google Scholar
  58. Uno T, Katagiri H, Kosukec K (2012) A Stackelberg solution for fuzzy random competitive location problems with demand site uncertainty. Intelligent Decision Technologies 6(1):69–75Google Scholar
  59. Yang D, Jiao J, Ji Y, Du G, Helo P, Valete A (2015) Joint optimization for coordinated configuration of product families and supply chains by a leader-follower Stackelberg game. Eur J Oper Res 246:263–280Google Scholar
  60. Yue D, You F (2014) Game-theoretic modeling and optimization of multi-echelon supply chain design and operation under Stackelberg game and market equilibrium. Comput Chem Eng 71:347–361Google Scholar
  61. Zadeh LA (1978) Fuzzy sets as a basis for a theory of possibility. Fuzzy Set Syst 1:3–28Google Scholar
  62. Zhang Y, Snyder LV, Ralphs TK, Xue Z (2016) The competitive facility location problem under disruption risks. Transp Res E 93:453–473Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Instituto de Turismo y Desarrollo Económico Sostenible/Dpto de Métodos Cuantitativos en Economía y GestiónUniversidad de Las Palmas de G.C.Las Palmas de Gran CanariaSpain
  2. 2.Instituto Universitario de Desarrollo RegionalUniversidad de La LagunaLa LagunaSpain

Personalised recommendations