Bibliographic record
Abstract
An examination of two areas of promotion and assortment planning in an environment is attempted in this paper. Sales promotion is a marketing strategy used by retailers to increase sales and profits by retaining customers and preventing them from switching to their competitors. Various products are available on the market that can substitute each other, so the best product assortment must be determined as well. In order to model the above subject, a nonlinear integer programming problem is proposed. Model solution involves rephrasing the problem as mixed integer linear programming. Small- and medium-sized problems can therefore be solved using MIP solver software. Firefly algorithms are designed to solve large-scale problems. According to the numerical results, determining the best product assortment for stores must also be done simultaneously with finding the optimal promotion. As a matter of fact, the promotion of the products significantly affects the assortment scenarios for the stores. Consequently, the selection of the promotional discount may result in large profit losses if the assortment planning is not taken into consideration. In order to assess the importance and sensitivity of the model parameters, a sensitivity analysis is conducted. The sensitivity analysis demonstrates that the model is able to respond to changes in market demand and competition, and provides an effective tool for chain stores to optimize their promotion and assortment strategies. To further validate the effectiveness of the model, a case study is conducted in Tehran, Iran. The results of the case study demonstrate the ability of the model to effectively optimize promotion and assortment strategies in real-world settings. Overall, the proposed model provides a valuable tool for chain stores to optimize their promotion and assortment strategies, and improve their market competitiveness.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
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".