Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 80 references

Cross-Dock Door Design under Uncertainty: A two-stage DRO-based lower- and upper-bounding scheme

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that a scenario-cluster-decomposition matheuristic supplies tight lower and upper bounds for two-stage distributionally robust cross-dock door design, with 2.37–9.71% optimality gaps on every tested instance.

desk verdict Useful DRO engineering for cross-dock door design, but the headline SCD lower-bound claim is not supported by the numbers because the SCD bound falls below the LP root bound in six of eight runs. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.01694 v2 pith:W4DTWAU2 submitted 2025-06-02 math.OC

Laureano F. Escudero , M. Araceli Garín , Aitziber Unzueta This is my paper
classification math.OC MSC 90C1590C1190B06
keywords distributionallyrobustoptimizationcross-dockdoordesigntwo-stagestochasticprogrammingscenarioclusterdecompositionmin-maxmatheuristicWassersteinambiguitysetdominancerisk-averse
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper claims that the stochastic cross-dock door design problem—choosing strip and stack doors and their nominal capacities before uncertain inbound and outbound commodity volumes are known—can be handled by a two-stage distributionally robust optimization model in which an ambiguity set of probability distributions replaces a single unknown distribution. The authors propose generating that ambiguity set by perturbing the cumulative distribution functions of a nominal scenario set and retaining members within a chosen Wasserstein radius. For the resulting risk-neutral and stochastic-dominance risk-averse models, a scenario-cluster-decomposition matheuristic supplies lower and upper bounds. On their test instances it produces feasible incumbent designs for every run, with optimality gaps of 2.37–9.71% and costs within 0.957–1.001 of the Gurobi incumbent where one exists.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the scenario cluster decomposition (SCD) built on split-variable reformulations of LIP-RN and LIP-SD. Copy variables for first-stage decisions (and for the robust cost u, and for the selector γ in the stochastic-dominance version) are introduced per cluster, with circular splitting-variable constraints (SVC) that are then relaxed; the resulting cluster submodels are solved independently. A lower bound comes from the maximum of the root LP bound and the weighted sum of optimal cluster submodel values, and an upper bound comes from fixing the first-stage solution of each cluster, solving the restricted full models, and taking the minimum over clusters of the first-stage cost plus the worst expected second-stage cost over ambiguity members. The ambiguity set itself is generated by cdf perturbations of the nominal distribution under four candidate probability densities, with weights recomputed by likelihood and members filtered by the Wasserstein transportation distance.

What would settle it

Generate a hold-out scenario set from the same process that produced the nominal distribution, solve the proposed DRO design, and compare realized second-stage costs with the worst-case cost predicted over the ambiguity set; if realized costs substantially exceed the predicted worst case, the selected finite ambiguity set is not representing the true distribution.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Cross-dock door design under uncertainty is cast as a two-stage distributionally robust mixed binary quadratic program: the first stage chooses strip and stack doors and their nominal capacities, and the second stage assigns inbound and outbound commodity flows to those doors, with a penalized outsourcing option, under each scenario of each member of a finite ambiguity set. The paper builds the ambiguity set by perturbing the cumulative distribution functions of the nominal scenario set for four candidate probability distributions, reweighting scenarios by likelihood, and retaining members whose Wasserstein distance to the nominal distribution is small. For the risk-neutral model LIP-RN and the stochastic-dominance risk-averse model LIP-SD, a scenario-cluster decomposition relaxes the copy-consistency constraints between clusters, solves independent cluster submodels to get a lower bound, and fixes first-stage solutions from those submodels to compute an upper bound by re-solving the full restricted models. The computational study on instances with 5, 10, and 20 scenarios reports incumbents for all runs, optimality gaps of 2.37–9.71%, and goodness ratios of the proposed cost to the Gurobi incumbent between 0.957 and 1.001; for the largest stochastic-dominance instances, neither Cplex nor Gurobi finds any feasible solution in the 12-hour limit.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the small finite ambiguity set selected by Wasserstein proximity to the nominal distribution contains or adequately represents the true unknown distribution, so that minimizing the worst cost over it is genuinely robust; the paper offers no out-of-sample check of that premise.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • On every tested run the matheuristic returns a feasible incumbent within hours, with a certified optimality gap between 2.37% and 9.71%.
  • Where Gurobi returns a feasible solution, the matheuristic cost lies between 0.957 and 1.001 of Gurobi's, so the heuristic design is cost-competitive with direct solver use.
  • For the largest I7 stochastic-dominance models, Cplex and Gurobi both fail to produce any feasible solution within 12 hours, while the matheuristic produces one.
  • The stochastic-dominance variant eliminates outsourcing in the low-weight high-cost black-swan scenarios at a small increase in the robust objective value, while satisfying the surplus bounds.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The SVC-relaxation plus min-max fixing scheme is transferable: any two-stage DRO with binary first-stage design decisions and scenario-wise recourse could be bounded the same way, not just cross-dock design.
  • A natural test the paper does not run is out-of-sample validation: evaluate the DRO design on held-out scenarios from the same process that produced the nominal distribution and compare realized costs with the predicted worst case.
  • The perturbation set size (20 per distribution, 80 candidates) and the Wasserstein radius are modeler-driven; enlarging them would show how sensitive the bounds and the robust cost are to the ambiguity set's coverage.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies the stochastic cross-dock door design problem under distributional ambiguity. It formulates two-stage mixed-binary-quadratic DRO models in risk-neutral and stochastic-dominance risk-averse versions, proposes a scheme to generate a finite ambiguity set by perturbing the nominal distribution and filtering candidates by Wasserstein proximity, and develops a scenario-cluster-decomposition matheuristic to compute lower and upper bounds. The computational study on instances I1, I3, and I7 compares the proposed bounds with CPLEX and Gurobi, reporting optimality gaps between 2.37% and 9.71% and goodness ratios between 0.957 and 1.001.

Significance. The problem addressed is relevant and computationally hard, and the modeling framework is coherent: the two-stage DRO formulation, the SD risk-averse extension, and the SCD-based bounding scheme are sensible design choices. The computational study is extensive and compares against two state-of-the-art solvers. However, the load-bearing quantitative claims are not established by the reported experiments: the lower bounds in Eqs. (8) and (17) are not certified, the SD upper-bound scheme is admitted to be potentially infeasible with respect to constraint (12c), and the ambiguity-set construction is not validated out of sample. If the bounding scheme were properly certified and the feasibility issue resolved, the matheuristic would be a useful practical tool for this problem. The paper does not provide machine-checked proofs, code, or data, so the numerical claims rest entirely on the described experiments.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.4, Eq. (8), and Section 4.3, Eq. (17)] The claimed lower bounds are not certified by the reported experiments. Each z^c_SCD is retrieved after solving submodel (7)/(16) with a 4-hour time limit (Section 5.4), but no optimality gaps for the submodels are reported; if a submodel is interrupted at an incumbent, its value is an upper bound on the subproblem minimum, so the weighted sum in (8)/(17) is not a guaranteed lower bound on z*_RN or z*_SD. Table 9 makes the consequence visible: the reported z_H is below the LP root bound z_L in six of eight rows (e.g., I3-RN-3: 6456.43 vs 7984.59; I7-RN-3: 17418.44 vs 20723.10), so with z' = max{z_L, z_H} the headline gap is effectively measured against the LP relaxation, not against the SCD bound. The paper should either prove each subproblem is solved to optimality, report subproblem optimality gaps, or replace z^c_SCD by a verified lower bound (e.g., the subproblem LP relaxation value).
  2. [Section 4.3, Note] The paper states that the proposed scheme cannot even guarantee that the solution of model LIP-SD is feasible for SD constraint (12c). This directly affects the upper-bound claim for the SD versions in Table 9. When the first-stage variables from submodel (16) are fixed and model (13) is solved, a solution violating (12c) is not feasible for the SD problem, so its cost is not an upper bound on z*_SD. The rows I7-SD-3 and I7-SD-6 report GR_H = ∞ because Gurobi finds no feasible solution; yet the paper later (Section 5.4) asserts that the SD bounds s_1 and \bar{s}_1 are satisfied for these instances. The manuscript must report the verified surplus values \sum_{\omega\in\Omega_p} w_\omega \hat{s}^{\omega,b} - \bar{s}^b for each reported SD incumbent, or clearly label the SD results as heuristic costs for potentially infeasible designs.
  3. [Section 2.3 and Sections 5.1-5.3] The distributionally robust claim rests on the unvalidated premise that the small finite ambiguity set P selected by Wasserstein proximity to the nominal distribution adequately represents the true unknown distribution. The radius θ, the number of candidate perturbations |P'_q|, the noise variance σ_ε, and the SD triplet (ι_1, s_1, \bar{s}_1) are all modeler-driven, and the SD triplet is chosen per instance specifically to eliminate outsourcing in the black swan scenarios. The observed improvement of SD over RN is therefore partly constructed by the modeler rather than discovered from data. A concrete remedy is an out-of-sample evaluation: generate additional realizations from the nominal mechanism, evaluate the RN and SD designs on them, and report worst-case and average costs as θ and the SD triplet vary. Without such validation, the title claim of a distributionally robust design is not established.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.4, Step 2(b)] The text says the first-stage vector is retrieved as in Step 2(b), but the vector is actually retrieved in Step 2(a); the cross-reference should be corrected.
  2. [Table 9] The header repeats 'z_H t_H' twice; rename the lower-bound and upper-bound columns (e.g., z_H^LB and z_H^UB) to avoid ambiguity.
  3. [Section 2.3] The sentence 'Set P is the subset of candidate members {p}, such that l_p^ρ ≤ θ up to p' is incomplete; the maximum cardinality |P| should be stated explicitly.
  4. [Abstract and Section 1] There are several typos, including 'KEYWORS' and 'overperformances'; the manuscript should be proofread.
  5. [Appendix B] The Lagrangean decomposition is presented in detail, but no computational results for it are reported; state clearly whether LD is used in the experiments.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Per-instance SD thresholds make the reported 'no outsourcing' result tautological; the matheuristic lower/upper-bound scheme is nevertheless benchmarked against independent commercial solvers.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 5.1.3 (echoed in Section 5.1.5 and Appendix D)]
    "The aim is to prevent the outsourcing costs as retrieved from the optimal solution of model LIP-RN (3). For that purpose an appropriate modeler-driven triplet (cost threshold, upper bound cost surplus and upper bound on the expected surplus cost in the scenarios) should be considered in model LIP-SD (13), see Appendix C. It can be observed in the solution shown in Table C.3 that there is not outsourcing in any black swan scenario at the price of a reasonable cost z∗SD."

    Under model LIP-SD, constraints (12b)-(12c) force C^ω_{12,p} ≤ ι_b + s^{ω,b}, with s^{ω,b} ≤ s_b and expected surplus ≤ s̄_b. The RN black-swan outsourcing costs in the paper are enormous (for I1, e.g., 14,000,416 in Table C.2), whereas the chosen triplets (I1: ι=7,600, s=2,500, s̄=1,500; I7: ι=38,800, s=7,900, s̄=7,900) cap admissible per-scenario costs at 10,100 and 46,700, respectively. Therefore the reported observation that SD solutions have no outsourcing in black swan scenarios is logically entailed by the parameters chosen for that purpose, not discovered by the model.

full rationale

Apart from the SD comparison, the derivation chain is largely self-contained. The DRO model LIP-RN is defined from first principles over the modeler-generated ambiguity set P, and the SCD lower/upper bounds (8)-(9) and (17)-(18) are tested against independent commercial solvers CPLEX and Gurobi (Tables 5 and 8), so the central matheuristic claim does not reduce to its inputs. The heavy citations to Escudero et al. (2024a,b) import a prior CDDP-TS model, the clustering scheme, and the SCS4B matheuristic, but these are ingredients of the construction, not the target result, and no uniqueness theorem is imported to force the DRO conclusions. Two caveats are noted but are not circularity. First, the finite ambiguity set P is selected by Wasserstein proximity to the nominal distribution, and no out-of-sample guarantee is offered, so the distributional robustness is only with respect to this modeler-driven set. Second, the SCD submodels are solved with a 4-hour time limit and no submodel optimality gaps are reported, so z_H in (8)/(17) may not be a certified lower bound; Table 9 indeed shows z_H below z_L in six of eight rows, meaning the reported optimality gap of 2.37-9.71% is measured against the LP root bound in those rows. Section 4.3 itself warns that SD feasibility with respect to (12c) is not guaranteed. These are correctness and robustness concerns, not cases where a prediction is equal by construction to a fitted input, with the single exception of the SD outsourcing result. Because that one secondary validation is parameter-driven while the main algorithmic comparison is independently benchmarked, the circularity score is 4.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on several hand-chosen parameters (sigma_epsilon, percentile radius, SD thresholds) and on domain assumptions of independence and availability of a nominal distribution. The most consequential is the independence assumption, which underpins the likelihood-based weights that define each ambiguity set member.

free parameters (5)
  • sigma_epsilon = 0.05
    Standard deviation of the Gaussian cdf perturbation noise, set by hand in Section 5.1.1; influences the spread of the candidate ambiguity set.
  • number of candidate perturbations per PD |P'_q| = 20
    Modeler-driven cardinality for each of the four distributions, used in all instances (Sections 5.1.1, 5.2.1, 5.3.1).
  • waterstein radius theta = 9.145, 9.338 (I1); 10.31, 10.61 (I3); 12.29, 12.58 (I7)
    Selected as 5th/10th (I1) or 3rd/7th (I3, I7) centiles of the observed candidate distances, not from theoretical coverage guarantees (Tables 1, 4, 7).
  • SD parameter triplet (iota1, s1, s_bar1) = I1: (7600,2500,1500); I3: (9600,2500,1500); I7: (38800,7900,7900)
    Chosen per instance to prevent outsourcing in black swan scenarios, e.g., Appendix C states 'an appropriate modeler-driven triplet... should be considered'. These values force the observed SD behavior.
  • ambiguity set cardinality |P| = 4,8 (I1); 3,6 (I3); 3,6 (I7)
    Determined by the chosen centile cutoff; modeler-driven and affects model size and robustness.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Assumption 1: There is enough empirical information to define a nominal distribution as a scenario set with weights.
    Section 2.1; the entire DRO construction starts from the nominal scenario set and its empirical moments.
  • domain assumption Assumption 2: Uncertain parameters are independent random variables, and parameters in the same group are identically distributed.
    Section 2.1; used to compute the likelihood product in equation (1) and hence the scenario weights for each ambiguity member.
  • domain assumption Assumption 3: The sets of uncertain parameters themselves may be uncertain, with overlapping scenario groups.
    Section 2.1; allows the model to handle uncertainties in which origin/destination nodes appear under a scenario.
  • standard math The split-variable reformulation with relaxed SVC constraints yields a valid lower bound.
    Section 3.3-3.4; this is a standard Lagrangian relaxation argument, though the paper does not provide a proof.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Cross-Dock Door Design under Uncertainty: A two-stage DRO-based lower- and upper-bounding scheme." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/W4DTWAU2

@misc{pith2026250601694,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Cross-Dock Door Design under Uncertainty: A two-stage DRO-based lower- and upper-bounding scheme},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/W4DTWAU2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.01694}
}
read the original abstract

The stochastic cross-dock door design problem entails determining the number of doors and their nominal capacities under uncertainty. The inbound flow of commodities from origin nodes is assigned to the entry doors consolidated in the platform, and the outbound flow is assigned to the exit doors to be delivered to the destination nodes. This problem combines three high computational difficulties, namely, NP-hard quadratic combinatorics, uncertainty in the main parameters, and ambiguity in their probability distribution. Distributionally robust optimization is considered to deal with these uncertainties. A two-stage mixed binary quadratic model is presented, where the first stage decisions are related to the design of the platform and the second stage ones are related to the assignment of the commodity flow to the doors in the members of the ambiguity set. The goal is to minimize the highest total cost in the ambiguity set, subject to the constraint system for each of those members. In addition to the risk-neutral version, a risk-averse formulation is presented. Given the difficulty of this problem, a min-max matheuristic scheme based on a scenario cluster decomposition is proposed for obtaining lower and upper bounds. A computational study is conducted to compare the solutions provided by the straightforward use of the state-of-the-art solvers CPLEX and Gurobi, as well as to validate the proposed matheuristic scheme.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.01694 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. CD entity - Guadalajara (Spain). Source:Alimarket [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. CD entity issues in the truck scheduling problem; it proposes a column and constraint generation exact algorithm for problem-solving. (See a review in Boysen and Fliedner (2010) for the deterministic version of the problem). See also Xi et al (2020) for uncertainty on arrival and operational times. Altaf et al. (2025) present an approach for solving CDAP by considering truck dock assignment with temporary storage un… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Instance I1. DRO cost distribution retrieved from the solution of models LIP-RN ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Instance I3. DRO cost distribution retrieved from the solution of models LIP-RN ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_4.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

80 extracted references · 76 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    & Spitters, T

    Akkerman, F., Lalla-Ruiz, E., Mes, M. & Spitters, T. (2022). Cross-docking: Current research versus industry practice and industry 4.0 adoption. In Bondarouk, T. and Olivas-Luján, M.R. (Eds.). Smart Industry - Better Management , 69-104, Emerald Group Holdings Co

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    & Lecoutre, C

    Altaf, A., El Amraoui, A., Delmotte, F. & Lecoutre, C. (2025). Robust cross-dock assignment problem with uncertain cost parameters. International Journal of Production Research , 1–26, doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2025.2469164

    arXiv 2025

  3. [3]

    & Fei, J

    Ardakani, A. & Fei, J. (2020). A systematic literature review on uncertainties in cross-docking operations. Modern Supply Chain Research and Applications , doi: 10.1108/MSCRA-04-2019-0011

    work page doi:10.1108/mscra-04-2019-0011 2020

  4. [4]

    & Heath, D

    Artzner, P., Delbaen, F., Eber, J.M. & Heath, D. (1999). Coherent measures of risk. Mathematical Finance , 9:203-228

    work page 1999

  5. [5]

    & Shetab-Boushehri, S.N

    Asgharyar, M., Farmand, N. & Shetab-Boushehri, S.N. (2025). A novel mathematical modeling approach for integrating a periodic vehicle routing problem and cross-docking system Computers & Operations Research , 107048, doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2025.107048

    work page arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    & Yang, M

    Bayraksan, G., Maggioni, F., Faccini, D. & Yang, M. (2024). Bounds for multistage mixed-integer distributionally robust optimization. SIAM Journal on Optimization , 34:682-717

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    & Morton, D.P

    van Beesten E,R., Romeijnders, W. & Morton, D.P. (2024). Pragmatic distributionally robust optimization for simple integer recourse models. SIAM Journal on Optimization , 34:1755-1783

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    & Sturt, B

    Bertsimas, D., McCord, C. & Sturt, B. (2023). Dynamic optimization with side information. European Journal of Operational Research , 304:634-651

    work page 2023

Show all 80 references
  1. [9]

    Bertsimas, D., Shtern. D. & Sturt, B. (2022). A data-driven approach to multi-stage stochastic linear optimization. Management Science , 69:51-74

    2022

  2. [10]

    & Fliedner, M

    Boysen, N. & Fliedner, M. (2010). Cross-dock scheduling: classification, literature review and research agenda. Omega , 38:423-422

    2010

  3. [11]

    Buakum, D & Wisittipanich, W. (2019). A literature review and further research direction in cross-docking. Proceedings of the International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management. Bangkok, Thailand

    2019

  4. [12]

    & Alem, D

    Caunhye, A.M. & Alem, D. (2023). Practicable robust stochastic optimization under divergence measures with an application to equitable humanitarian response planning. OR Spectrum , 45:759-806

    2023

  5. [13]

    & Puerto, J

    Cesarone, F. & Puerto, J. (2025). Flexible enhanced indexation models through stochastic dominance and ordered weighted average optimization. European Journal of Operational Research , 323:657-670

    2025

  6. [14]

    Chargui, T., Essghaier, F., Bekrar, A., Allaoui, H., Trentesaux, D., Goncalves, G. (2021). Multi-objective cross-docking in physical internet hubs under arrival time uncertainty. In: Borangiu, T., Trentesaux, D., Leitão, P., Cardin, O., Lamouri, S. (eds). Service Oriented, Hol...

    2021

  7. [15]

    & Ruszczy\'nski, A

    Dentcheva, D. & Ruszczy\'nski, A. (2003). Optimization with stochastic dominance constraints. SIAM Journal on Optimization , 14:548-566

    2003

  8. [16]

    & Ruszczy\'nski, A

    Dentcheva, D. & Ruszczy\'nski, A. (2010). A robust stochatic dominance and its application to the risk averse optimization. Mathematical Programming , 123:85-100

    2010

  9. [17]

    & Ruszczy\'nski, A

    Dentcheva, D. & Ruszczy\'nski, A. (2024). Numerical methods for problems with stochastic dominance constraints. In: Risk-Averse Optimization and Control. Springer

    2024

  10. [18]

    Dentcheva, D. & Yi, Y. (2025). Relaxation of stochastic dominance constraint via optimal transport. SIAM Journal on Optimization , submitted

    2025

  11. [19]

    & Morton, D.P

    Duque, D., Mehrotra, S. & Morton, D.P. (2022) Distributionally robust two-stage stochastic programming. SIAM Journal on Optimization , 32:1499-1522

    2022

  12. [20]

    & Toriello A

    El Tonbari, M., Nemhauser, G. & Toriello A. (2024). Distributionally robust disaster relief planning under the Wasserstein set. Computers & Operations Research , 168:106689

    2024

  13. [21]

    & Iyengar, G

    Erdogan, E. & Iyengar, G. (2006). Ambiguous chance-constrained problems and robust optimization. Mathematical Programming , 107:37-61

    2006

  14. [22]

    & Unzueta, A

    Escudero, L.F., Gar\' n, A., Monge; J.F. & Unzueta, A. (2020). Some matheuristic algorithms for multistage stochastic optimization models with endogenous uncertainty and risk management. European Journal of Operational Research , 285:988-1001

    2020

  15. [23]

    & Unzueta, A

    Escudero, L.F., Gar\' n, A. & Unzueta, A. (2016). Cluster Lagrangean decomposition in multistage stochastic optimization. Computers & Operations Research , 67:48-62

    2016

  16. [24]

    & Unzueta, A

    Escudero, L.F., Gar\'in, M.A. & Unzueta, A. (2024a). On solving the Cross-dock Door Assignment Problem, CDAP. International Journal of Production Research , 64, 1262-1276

    2024

  17. [25]

    & Unzueta, A

    Escudero, L.F., Gar\'in, M.A. & Unzueta, A. (2024b). A methodology for the cross-dock door platforms design under uncertainty. arXiv:arXiv:2403.03686

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    & Monge, J.F

    Escudero, L.F. & Monge, J.F. (2018). On capacity expansion planning under strategic and operational uncertainties based on stochastic dominance risk averse management. Computational Management Science , 15:479-500

    2018

  19. [27]

    & Monge, J.F

    Escudero, L.F. & Monge, J.F. (2023). On risk management of multistage multiscale FLP under uncertainty. Chapter in Eiselt, H.A.& Marianov, V. (eds.), Uncertainty in facility location models. International series in Operations Reseaarch & Management Sciences, 437, pp.355-390, Springer

    2023

  20. [28]

    & Kuhn, D

    Esfahani, P.M. & Kuhn, D. (2015). Data-driven distributionally robust optimization using the Wasserstein metric: performance guarantees and tractable reformulations. arXiv:arXiv:1505.05116

    2015 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Essghaier, F., Allaoui. H. & Goncalves, G. (2021). Truck to door assignment on a shared cross-dock under uncertainty. Expert Sysems with Applications 182:114889

    2021

  22. [30]

    & Ravetti, M.G

    Fonseca, G.B., Nogueira, T.H. & Ravetti, M.G. (2024). Stability approach to CDC truck scheduling problem under uncertainty. Optimization Letters , doi.org/10.1007/s11590-024-02137-6

    2024 doi

  23. [31]

    Fortet, R. (1960). Application de l'\' a lgebre de boole en recherche operationelle. Revue Fran c aise de Recherche Operationelle , 4:17-26

    1960

  24. [32]

    & Manzini, R, (2022)

    Gallo, A., Accorsi, R., Akkerman, R. & Manzini, R, (2022). Scheduling cross-docking operations under uncertainty: A stochastic genetic algorithm based on scenarios tree. EURO Journal on Transportation and Logistics , 11:100095

    2022

  25. [33]

    & Kleywegt, A.J

    Gao, R. & Kleywegt, A.J. (2022). Distributionally robust stochastic optimization with Wasserstein distance. Mathematics of Operations Research , 48:603-655. Previously, ArXiv:1604.02199c2, 2016

    2022 arXiv

  26. [34]

    & Oustry, F

    Ghaoui, L.F., Oks, M. & Oustry, F. (2003). Worst case value-at-risk and robust portfolio optimization. A conic programming approach. Operations Research , 51:543-556

    2003

  27. [35]

    & Todosijevic, R

    Gelareh, S., Glover, F., Guemri, O., Hanafi, S., Nduwayo, P. & Todosijevic, R. (2020). A comparative study of formulations for a cross-dock door assignment problem. Omega , 91:10215

    2020

  28. [36]

    & Schultz, R

    Gollmer, R., Gotzes, Y. & Schultz, R. (2011). A note on second-order stochastic dominance constraints induced by mixed-integer linear recourse. Mathematical Programming , 126:179-190

    2011

  29. [37]

    & Kashan, A.H

    Goodarzi, A.H., Zegordi, S.H., Alpan, G., Kamalabadi, I.N. & Kashan, A.H. (2020). Reliable cross-docking location problem under the risk of disruptions. Operational Research , doi.org/10.1007/s12351-020-00583-5

    2020 doi

  30. [38]

    Guignard, M., Hahn, P.M., Pessoa, A.A., and Cardoso da Silva, D. 2012. Algorithms for the Cross-dock Door Assignment Problem. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Workshop on Model-Based Metaheuristics 2012. www.optimization-online.org/DB-FILE/2012/06/3509.pdf

    2012

  31. [39]

    Guignard, M. 2020. Strong RLT1 bounds from decomposable Lagrangean Relaxation for some quadratic 0--1 optimization problems with linear constraints. Annals of Operations Research, 286: 173--200

    2020

  32. [40]

    & Wright, S

    HoNguyen, N. & Wright, S. (2023). Adversarial classification via distributional robustness with Wasserstein ambiguity. Mathematical Programming , 198:1411-1447

    2023

  33. [41]

    & Pardalos, P.M

    Hosseini-Nodeh, Z., Khanjani-Shiraz, R. & Pardalos, P.M. (2022). Distributionally Robust Portfolio Optimization with Second-Order Stochastic Dominance Based on Wasserstein Metric. Information Sciences , doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2022.09.039

    2022 doi

  34. [42]

    & Fukusima, M

    Huong, D., Zhu, S., Fabozzi, F.J. & Fukusima, M. (2008). Robust portfolio selection with uncertain exit time: A robust CVaR approach. Journal of Economic Dynamics & Control , 32:594-623

    2008

  35. [43]

    & Chen, Z.-S

    Jiang, S., Liu, Q., Wu, L., Zhang, Y., Deveci, M. & Chen, Z.-S. (2024). A distributionally robust optimization approach for the potassium fertilizer product transportation considering transshipment through crossdocks. Computers & Operations Research , 171:106788

    2024

  36. [44]

    Kantorovich, L.V. (1942). On the Translocation of Masses. Doclady Akad. Nauk SSSR , 37:199-201. An English translationn in Management Science , 5:1-4, 1958

    1942

  37. [45]

    & Khanfar, A

    Kiani Mavi, R., Goh, M., Kiani Mavi, N., Jie, F., Brown, K., Biermann, S. & Khanfar, A. 2020. Cross-Docking: a systematic literature review. Sustainability , 12:4789; doi: 10.3390/su12114789

    2020 doi

  38. [46]

    Knight, F.H. (2012). Risk, uncertainty and profit. Courier Corporation . Original edition, 1921, Houghton Miffling

    2012

  39. [47]

    McCormick, G.P. (1976). Computability of global solutions to factorable nonconvex programs: Part I — Convex underestimating problems. Mathematical Programming , 10:147-175

    1976

  40. [48]

    & Chen, Z

    Mei, Y., Liu, J. & Chen, Z. (2022) Distributionally Robust Second-Order Stochastic Dominance Constrained Optimization with Wasserstein Ball. SIAM Journal on Optimization , 32:715-738

    2022

  41. [49]

    Miao, Z., Cai, S. & Xu, D. (2014). Applying an adaptative tabu-search algorithm to optimize truck-door assignment in the crossdock management system. Expert Sysems with Applications 4:16-22

    2014

  42. [50]

    & Hashemi, H

    Mousavi, S.M., Behnam Vahdani, B., Tavakkoli-Moghaddam, R. & Hashemi, H. (2014). Location of cross-docking centers and vehicle routing scheduling under uncertainty: A fuzzy possibilistic–stochastic programming model. Applied Mathematical Modeling , 38:2249-2264

    2014

  43. [51]

    Nassief, W. (2017). Cross-dock door assignments: Models, algorithm and extensions. PhD Thesis, Concordia University. Montreal, Canada

    2017

  44. [52]

    & Jaumard, B

    Nassief, W., Contreras, I. & Jaumard, B. (2018). A comparison of formulations and relaxations for the cross-dock door assignment problems. Computers & Operations Research , 94:76-88

    2018

  45. [53]

    & Jaumard, B

    Nassief, W., Contreras, I., Guignard, M., Hahn, P. & Jaumard, B. (2019). The container scheduling and cross-dock door selection problem. Journal of the Operational Research Society , submitted for publication

    2019

  46. [54]

    de (2021)

    Oliveira, W. de (2021). Risk-Averse Stochastic Programming and Distributionally Robust Optimization Via Operator Splitting. Set-Valued and Variational Analysis , 29:861-891

    2021

  47. [55]

    CRC Press

    Pardo, L (2005) Statistical inference based on divergence measures . CRC Press

    2005

  48. [56]

    & Pichler, A

    Pflug, G.C. & Pichler, A. (2014). A distance of multi-stage stochastic optimization models. SIAM Journal on Optimization , 22:1-22

    2014

  49. [57]

    Pichler, A. (2024). Connection between higher order measures of risk and stochastic dominance. Computational Management Science , 21:41

    2024

  50. [58]

    & Kapelevich, L

    Philpott, A.B., de Matos, V.L. & Kapelevich, L. (2018). Distributionally robust SDDP. Computational Management Science , 15:431–454

    2018

  51. [59]

    Available: www.r-project.org

    The R Project for Statistical Computing. Available: www.r-project.org

  52. [60]

    Ross, J. 1997. Office Depot scores major cross-docking gains. Sore Magazine , 39

    1997

  53. [61]

    & Delage, E

    Saif, A. & Delage, E. (2021). Data-driven distributionally robust capacity facility location. European Journal of Operational Research , 29:995-1007

    2021

  54. [62]

    Scarf, H.E. (1957). A min-max solution of an inventory problem. Technical report P-910, Rand Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, USA

    1957

  55. [63]

    & Dolgui A

    Serrano, Ch., Delorme, X. & Dolgui A. (2021). Cross-dock distribution and operationplanning for overseas delivery consolidation. CIRP Journal of Manufacturing Science and Technology , 33:71-81

    2021

  56. [64]

    Shapiro, A. (2021). Tutorial on risk neutral, distributionally robust and risk averse multistage stochastic programming. European Journal of Operational Research , 288:1-13

    2021

  57. [65]

    & Ruszczynski, A

    Shapiro, A., Dentcheva, D. & Ruszczynski, A. (2009). Lectures on Stochastic Programming: Modeling and Theory. MPS-SIAM Series on Optimization 28 , 3rd edition, https://doi.org/10.1137/1.9781611976595

    2009 doi

  58. [66]

    & Jiang, R

    Shen H. & Jiang, R. (2023). Chance-constrained set covering with Wasserstein ambiguity. Mathematical Programming , 198:621-674

    2023

  59. [67]

    Soanpet, A. (2012). Optimization models for locating cross-docks under capacity uncertainty. Graduate Theses, Dissertations, and Problem Reports. 582, West Virginia University, VI, USA. https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/etd/582

    2012

  60. [68]

    Taheri, F, & Taft, A.F. (2024). Reliable scheduling and routing in robust multiple cross-docking networks design. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence , 128:107466

    2024

  61. [69]

    Tong, X., Wu, F, & Qi, L. (2009). Worst-case CVaR based portfolio optimization models with application to scenario planning. Optimization Methods & Software , 24:933-958

    2009

  62. [70]

    & Cattrysse, D (2012)

    VanBelle, J., Valckenaers, P. & Cattrysse, D (2012). Cross-docking: State-of-the-art. Omega , 40:827-846

    2012

  63. [71]

    & Hay, L.L

    Xi, X., Changehun, L., Yuan, W. & Hay, L.L. (2020). Two-stage conflict robust optimization models for cross-dock truck scheduling problem under uncertainty. Transportation Research E , 144:102123

    2020

  64. [72]

    Xie, W. (2020). Tractable reformulations of two-stage distributionally robust linear programs over the type - Wasserstein ball. Operations Research Letters , 48:513-523

    2020

  65. [73]

    Wang, D., Yang, K. Yang, L. & Dong, J. (2023). Two-stage distributionally robust optimization for disaster relief logistics under option contract and demand ambiguity. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review , 170:103025

    2023

  66. [74]

    & Andrejic, M

    Wang, J., Wen, J., Pajic, W. & Andrejic, M. (2024). Optimizing cross-dock terminal location selection: A multi-step approach based on CI-DEA-IDOCRIW-MABAC for enhanced suppoly chain efficiency - A case study. Mathematics , 12, 736

    2024

  67. [75]

    Zhai, J., Yu, H., Liang, K.-R., & Li, K.W. (2025). Distributionally robust optimization of a newsvendor model under capital constraint and risk aversion. Computers & Operations Research , 106870

    2025

  68. [76]

    Zhu, S, & Fukusima, M. (2009). Worst-case conditional value-at-risk with application to robust portfolio management. Operations Research , 57:1155-1168

    2009

  69. [77]

    Bragin, M.A. (2024). Survey on Lagrangian relaxation for MILP: importance, challenges, historical review, recent advancements, and opportunities. Annals of Operations Research , 333, 29–45

    2024

  70. [78]

    & Unzueta, A

    Escudero, L.F., Gar\' n, A. & Unzueta, A. (2016). Cluster Lagrangean decomposition in multistage stochastic optimization Computers and Operations Research , 67:48-62

    2016

  71. [79]

    Geoffrion, A.M. 1974. Lagrangean relaxation for integer programming. Mathematical Programming Studies, 2:82-114

    1974

  72. [80]

    & Kim, S

    Guignard, M. & Kim, S. (1987). Lagrangean decomposition. A model yielding stronger Lagrangean bounds. Mathematical Programming , 39:215-228

    1987

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.