MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2136602649 · doi:10.1287/opre.2014.1325

Technical Note—Joint Inventory and Pricing Control with General Additive Demand

2014· article· en· W2136602649 on OpenAlexaff
Hong Chen, Zhan Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueOperations Research · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicSupply Chain and Inventory Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInventory controlRevenueMathematical optimizationProfit (economics)Regular polygonInventory theoryEconomicsDynamic pricingGeneralizationComputer scienceMathematical economicsMathematicsMicroeconomicsOperations management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper analyzes a periodic-review, joint inventory and pricing control problem for a firm that faces stochastic, price-sensitive demand under a nonstationary environment with fixed ordering costs. Any unsatisfied demand is backlogged. The objective is to maximize expected profit over a finite selling horizon by coordinating the inventory and pricing decisions in each period. We show that for an additive demand model, an (s, S, p) policy is optimal when the expected revenue is quasi-concave in price, the inventory cost (of holding and/or backlogging) is quasi-convex, and the nonnegative random demand has a Pólya or uniform density function. For the special case with no fixed ordering cost, the optimality of a base stock list price policy is demonstrated for more general demand distributions and convex inventory cost. These sets of sufficient conditions generalize the existing conditions in the literature that require, for example, the demand and/or revenue functions to be concave or the model parameters to be stationary in time. Our generalization makes the structural results applicable to models broadly supported by economic theory and empirical data. In addition, our proof uses a distinct sequential optimization technique for iteratively establishing the quasi-K-concavity of dynamic optimal value functions.

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 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 categoriesnone
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 score0.819
Threshold uncertainty score0.545

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.257 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOperations ResearchSame topicSupply Chain and Inventory ManagementFrench-language works237,207