TECHNICAL NOTE—Decentralized Inventory Sharing with Asymmetric Information
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We study the information asymmetry issues in a decentralized inventory-sharing system consisting of a manufacturer and two independent retailers, who privately hold demand information, noncooperatively place their orders, but cooperatively share inventories with each other. We find that although the manufacturer needs retailers' mean demand and standard deviation for her wholesale price decision, each retailer only needs to know the other retailer's demand standard deviation for his order quantity decision. However, an incentive compatibility analysis shows that retailers have incentives to share their demand information untruthfully. Although a truth-inducing scheme can be developed for a system with symmetric retailers who share information between themselves, no such scheme can be developed to ensure truth-telling to the manufacturer. Further, we develop a coordination mechanism (CIS) for the decentralized inventory-sharing system, considering information asymmetry. We show that CIS coordinates the manufacturer-retailers system and leads to an all-win situation under complete information. More importantly, CIS minimizes the value of information such that each party can obtain expected profits very close to their first-best profits even under asymmetric information and hence indirectly solves the information asymmetry problem. To our knowledge, this work is the first to study decentralized inventory sharing and its coordination considering asymmetric information.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".