Delegation of Stocking Decisions Under Asymmetric Demand Information
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Problem definition: We consider the incentive design problem of a retailer that delegates stocking decisions to its store managers who are privately informed about local demand. Academic/practical relevance: Shortages are highly costly in retail, but are less of a concern for store managers, as their exact amounts are usually not recorded. In order to align incentives and attain desired service levels, retailers need to design mechanisms in the absence of information on shortage quantities. Methodology: The headquarters knows that the underlying demand process at a store is one of J possible Wiener processes, whereas the store manager knows the specific process. The store manager creates a single order before each period. The headquarters uses an incentive scheme that is based on the end-of-period leftover inventory and on a stock-out occasion at a prespecified inspection time before the end of a period. The problem for the headquarters is to determine the inspection time and the significance of a stock-out relative to leftover inventory in evaluating the performance of the store manager. We formulate the problem as a constrained nonlinear optimization problem in the single period setting and a dynamic program in the multiperiod setting. Results: We show that the proposed “early inspection” scheme leads to perfect alignment when J equals two under mild conditions. In more general cases, we show that the scheme performs strictly better than inspecting stock-outs at the end and achieves near-perfect alignment. Our numerical experiments, using both synthetic and real data, reveal that this scheme can lead to considerable cost reductions. Managerial implications: Stock-out-related measures are typically not included in store managers’ performance scorecards in retail. We propose a novel, easy, and practical performance measurement scheme that does not depend on the actual amount of shortages. This new scheme incentivizes the store managers to use their private information in the retailer’s best interest and clearly outperforms centralized ordering systems that are common practice.
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 | 0.009 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".