We consider a sequential competitive facility location and attractiveness design problem (S-CFLAP) in which the leader and follower sequentially decide on the location and attractiveness design (e.g., building area) of new facilities to maximize their market shares. Customer demand follows a probabilistic choice model in which a gravity-based rule is employed to model customer behavior. In S-CFLAP, there are two types of players: the leader and the follower. Their interaction is modeled as a Stackelberg game, in which the leader makes decisions first by predicting the follower’s response and the follower acts afterward. This framework results in a bilevel mixed-integer nonlinear program (MINLP). This is the first study to propose an exact and efficient algorithm for the S-CFLAP with continuous attractiveness by choosing the appropriate utility function, reformulation, and valid inequality derivation. Specifically, we reformulate the bilevel model to a single-level MINLP by adopting the idea of solving the interdiction games. Then, we derive valid inequalities using the outer-approximation method and incorporate them in a branch-and-cut (B&C) algorithm. For the subproblem, in which the leader’s decisions are fixed, we propose two methods: outer approximation and a reformulation into a second-order cone programming (SOCP) model, which leads to two exact algorithms of the S-CFLAP. Also, we enhance the B&C algorithms by temporarily allowing suboptimal solutions of the subproblems to be added as cuts. Comprehensive experiments validate the efficiency and effectiveness of the proposed B&C algorithms, the reformulations, and the acceleration policy. We also derived several managerial insights for decision makers regarding the design budget assignment, leader-follower game-playing, spatial impedance effects, and so on, from comparisons with benchmark solution approaches and sensitivity analyses.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Liu et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: