Fixed vs. Random Proportions Demand Models for the Assortment Planning Problem Under Stockout-Based Substitution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We consider the problem of determining the optimal assortment of products to offer in a given product category when each customer is characterized by a type, which is a list of products he is willing to buy in decreasing order of preference. We assume consumer-driven, dynamic, stockout-based substitution and random proportions of each type. No efficient method to obtain the optimal solution for this problem is known to our knowledge. However, if the number of customers of each type is a fixed proportion of demand, there exists an efficient algorithm for solving for the optimal assortment. We show that the fixed proportions model gives an upper bound to the optimal expected profit for the random proportions model. This bound allows us to obtain a measure of the absolute performance of heuristic solutions. We also provide a bound for the component-wise absolute difference in expected sales between the two models, which is asymptotically tight as the inventory vector is made large, while keeping the number of products fixed. This result provides us with a lower bound to the optimal expected profit and a performance guarantee for the fixed proportions solution in the random proportions model.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".