Exact Analysis of Capacitated Two-Echelon Inventory Systems with Priorities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We consider a two-echelon inventory system with a capacitated centralized production facility and several distribution centers (DCs). Both production and transportation times are stochastic with general distributions. Demand arrives at each DC according to an independent Poisson process and is backlogged if the DC is out of stock. We allow different holding and backlog costs at the different DCs. We assume that inventory at DCs is managed using the one-for-one replenishment policy. The main objective of this paper is to investigate the control of the multiechelon M/G/1 setting with general transportation times. To achieve this objective, we analyze several decentralized allocation policies including the first-come, first-served (FCFS), strict priority (SP), and multilevel rationing (MR) policies. For our analytic results, we assume no order crossing. We derive the cost function for a capacitated two-echelon inventory system with general transportation times under these policies. Our numerical examples show that the FCFS policy may outperform the MR policy, even though the latter has been shown to be better in the centralized setting. This suggests that in decentralized settings there is a need to focus on policies that prioritize customers when there is backlog. This focus is in contrast to the centralized settings, where inventory rationing policies that focus on prioritization when there is available inventory are effective. We therefore introduce and analyze the generalized multilevel rationing (GMR) priority policy. We compare the GMR policy with other policies and show that the GMR policy outperforms the three policies used in the centralized setting. We also compare the GMR policy with the myopic (T), longest queue first (LQF), and the optimal (when order crossing is allowed during the transportation time) policies. Our results show that when the uncertainty of the transportation times is low, the GMR policy outperforms the myopic (T) and LQF policies and that the gap between the optimal policy and the GMR policy is not high.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".