Newsvendor Networks: Inventory Management and Capacity Investment with Discretionary Activities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We introduce a class of models, called newsvendor networks, that allow for multiple products and multiple processing and storage points and investigate how their single-period properties extend to dynamic settings. Such models provide a parsimonious framework to study various problems of stochastic capacity investment and inventory management, including assembly, commonality, distribution, flexibility, substitution and transshipment. Newsvendor networks are stochastic models with recourse that are characterized by linear revenue and cost structures and a linear input-output transformation. While capacity and inventory decisions are locked in before uncertainty is resolved, some managerial discretion remains via ex-post input-output activity decisions. Ex-post decisions involve both the choice of activities and their levels and can result in subtle benefits. This discretion in choice is captured through alternate or “nonbasic” activities that can redeploy inputs and resources to best respond to resolved uncertain events. Nonbasic activities are never used in a deterministic environment; their value stems from discretionary flexibility to meet stochastic demand deviations from the operating point. The optimal capacity and inventory decisions balance overages with underages. Continuing the classic newsvendor analogy, the optimal balancing conditions can be interpreted as specifying multiple “critical fractiles” of the multivariate demand distribution; they also suggest appropriate measures for and trade-offs between product service levels. This paper shows that the properties of optimal newsvendor network solutions extend to a dynamic setting under plausible conditions. Indeed, we establish dynamic optimality of inventory and capacity policies for the lost sales case. Depending on the nonbasic activities, this also extends to the backordering case. Analytic- and simulation-based solution techniques and graphical interpretations are presented and illustrated by a comprehensive example that features discretionary input commonality and a flexible processing resource.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
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".