Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Selecting facility locations on a national road network requires evaluating, for every candidate configuration, the shortest-path distance from each demand node to its nearest facility. We show that this objective admits a single multi-source shortest-path sweep rather than K independent single-source Dijkstra searches, which reduces the cost of one exact evaluation on the Great Britain network (12.8 million nodes, 5.4 million demand points) from an estimated 158 s to about 1 s and makes a fully exact national-scale baseline computationally tractable. We build this exact evaluator and use it as a benchmark for surrogate-assisted multi-objective optimization. We propose GP-SA-MOEA, a Gaussian process surrogate-assisted multi-objective evolutionary algorithm that replaces most expensive distance evaluations with a learned surrogate while correcting it through uncertainty-guided active learning. On a London benchmark with a computable exactly evaluated reference front, GP-SA-MOEA recovers a diverse front (hypervolume ratio 0.995), whereas a pure surrogate without active learning spuriously dominates the reference front by underestimating distances. At national scale, an exactly evaluated NSGA-II baseline built on this evaluator attains a better Pareto front than GP-SA-MOEA at lower cost (mean IGD 556 vs. 4378, in 1.3 h vs. 5.9 h), and the Euclidean proxy is the closer of the two surrogates in aggregate mean. We therefore ask when surrogate assistance is still worthwhile, and answer with a topology-sensitive benchmark: geometric (Euclidean) assignment fails systematically where water barriers and one-way restrictions make network distance diverge from straight-line distance, selecting the wrong facility for every cross-water demand node on both network versions. These findings position the multi-source exact evaluator as a practical route to large-scale multi-objective facility location and delimit the role of surrogate assistance in this setting.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lan et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: