issue with predefined facilities results?

[jGaboardi]

@gegen07 I may have found an issue with the result of defining facilities for the LSCP, though I may have misunderstood something. Check out the gist here that is bit altered from our LSCP example notebook (cells 2, 14, 22, 23). Basically, the results in cells 22 and 23 seem show that not all clients are being covered by facilities. Do you have time to look into this?

[gegen07]

Hmm... I just replicate your gist and seems that the problem with predefined locations + geopandas is infeasible. Possibly because of the strict max_coverage=3. When we use geopandas we have to calculate the distances using cdist with euclidean metric as default and then some distances are different compared to Dijkstra calculated by spaghetti. So it works for from_cost_matrix and doesn't work for from_geodataframe.

I tried with max_coverage=5 and it seems that is right.

[qszhao]

Hi @gegen07 if this is an LSCP problem, then we need to cover all the demands. In this case, the algorithm should try to add additional facilities to cover the uncovered demands. It has nothing to do with the max_coverage in this case??

[jGaboardi]

Hi @gegen07 if this is an LSCP problem, then we need to cover all the demands. In this case, the algorithm should try to add additional facilities to cover the uncovered demands. It has nothing to do with the max_coverage in this case??

Here max_coverage means the service radius threshold $S$.

[jGaboardi]

OK, figured it out. In cell 2 I set the solver output to True to see the CBC logs. The models are infeasible with the service radius I had set (MAX_COVERAGE = 3).

We should probably be checking solution status and raising an exception if the model is infeasible.

[qszhao]

That's a very good idea to give the red flag! @jGaboardi

[gegen07]

Maybe we also should change the name max_coverage to service_radius to avoid misunderstanding.

[gegen07]

xref #239