MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2049461017 · doi:10.1287/opre.1100.0835

Optimal Control of a Mean-Reverting Inventory

2010· article· en· W2049461017 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueOperations Research · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicSupply Chain and Inventory Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaKorea Science and Engineering FoundationAjou University
KeywordsMean reversionInventory controlInventory theoryInventory managementImpulse (physics)Cycle countOperations managementComputer scienceControl (management)Operations researchMathematical optimizationMathematicsEconomicsEconometrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Motivated by empirical observations, we assume that the inventory level of a company follows a mean-reverting process. The objective of the management is to keep this inventory level as close as possible to a given target; there is a running cost associated with the difference between the actual inventory level and the target. If inventory deviates too much from the target, management may perform an intervention in the form of either a purchase or a sale of an amount of the goods. There are fixed and proportional costs associated with each intervention. The objective of this paper is to find the optimal inventory levels at which interventions should be performed as well as the magnitudes of the interventions to minimize the total cost. We solve this problem by applying the theory of stochastic impulse control. Our analysis yields the optimal policy, which at times exhibits a behavior that is not intuitive.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.742
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.059
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.267 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it