2-Approximation Algorithms for Perishable Inventory Control When FIFO Is an Optimal Issuing Policy arxiv: v2 [math.

Transcription

1 Vol. 00, No. 0, Xxxxx 0000, pp issn eissn INFORMS doi /xxxx c 0000 INFORMS 2-Approximaion Algorihms for Perishable Invenory Conrol When FIFO Is an Opimal Issuing Policy arxiv: v2 [mah.oc] 9 May 2016 Can Zhang H. Milon Sewar School of Indusrial and Sysems Engineering, Georgia Insiue of Technology, Alana, Georgia, 30332, czhang2012@gaech.edu Turgay Ayer H. Milon Sewar School of Indusrial and Sysems Engineering, Georgia Insiue of Technology, Alana, Georgia, 30332, ayer@isye.gaech.edu Chelsea C. Whie III H. Milon Sewar School of Indusrial and Sysems Engineering, Georgia Insiue of Technology, Alana, Georgia, 30332, cwhie@isye.gaech.edu We consider a periodic-review, fixed-lifeime perishable invenory conrol problem where demand is a general sochasic process. The opimal soluion for his problem is inracable due o curse of dimensionaliy. In his paper, we firs presen a compuaionally efficien algorihm ha we call he marginal-cos dualbalancing policy for perishable invenory conrol problem. We hen prove ha a myopic policy under he so-called marginal-cos accouning scheme provides a lower bound on he opimal ordering quaniy. By combining he specific lower bound we derive and any upper bound on he opimal ordering quaniy wih he marginal-cos dual-balancing policy, we presen a more general class of algorihms ha we call he runcaed-balancing policy. We prove ha when firs-in-firs-ou (FIFO) is an opimal issuing policy, boh of our proposed algorihms admi a wors-case performance guaranee of wo, i.e. he expeced oal cos of our policy is a mos wice ha of an opimal ordering policy. We furher presen sufficien condiions ha ensure he opimaliy of FIFO issuing policy. Finally, we conduc numerical analyses based on real daa and show ha boh of our algorihms perform much beer han he wors-case performance guaranee, and he runcaed-balancing policy has a significan performance improvemen over he balancing policy. Key words: perishable invenory; nonsaionary correlaed demand; approximaion algorihms; opimaliy of FIFO issuing policy 1. Inroducion. Perishable producs are very common in pracice. Typical examples include medical producs such as blood and cerain pharmaceuicals, and food producs such as refrigeraed mea and many dairy producs. Unlike nonperishable producs ha can wai in invenory unil hey are used o saisfy demand, perishable producs mus be used wihin a shor period of ime, and will become oudaed oherwise. Oudaing can resul in a significan amoun of wases and financial losses. For example, he number of plaeles oudaed in 2011 in he U.S. was approximaely 321,000 unis, which accouned for 12.8% of all processed unis (US Deparmen of Healh and Human Services [34]). Similarly, he oal annual unsaleable coss in he food, beverage, healh and beauy indusries in he U.S. were esimaed as $15 billion, and abou 17% of hese coss (over 2.5 billion dollars) were caused by oudaing (Grocery Manufacurer Associaion [13]). These facs underline he criical need for efficien invenory managemen policies for perishable producs. Our sudy is specifically moivaed by a plaele invenory conrol problem faced by a local acue-care hospial, Hospial Alpha (name blinded). In Hospial Alpha, he demand for plaeles mainly comes from cardiac surgeries, which accoun for more han 85% of is plaele ransfusion. 1

2 Auhor: Aricle Shor Tile 2 00(0), pp , c 0000 INFORMS In his case, he uncerainy of demand sems from wo sources: 1) he number of surgeries performed per day, and 2) he amoun of plaeles needed per surgery. Such a compound srucure of demand is common for many blood producs. As such, he compound Poisson disribuion, where a random (Poisson) amoun of paiens arrive a every ime period and each paien consumes a random amoun of blood producs, has been widely assumed for modeling demand in he blood supply chain lieraure (e.g., Gregor e al. [12], Kopach e al. [18], Kasaliaki [17]). However, while simply assuming random arrivals is reasonable for some cases such as rauma paiens, forecas informaion on he number of arrivals is ofen available for many oher cases, especially for scheduled operaions such as cardiac surgeries. In paricular, mos of hose surgeries are scheduled days or even weeks in advance, hus he number of surgeries scheduled for each day is gradually revealed as ime approaches. Alhough he compound srucure of demand is widely considered in he blood invenory managemen lieraure, o our knowledge, he dynamically evolving forecas informaion on he number of arrivals is no formally capured. Moivaed by he plaele invenory conrol problem wih evolving forecas informaion, in his paper, we sudy a periodic-review, fixed-lifeime perishable invenory conrol problem under a general demand process which can be nonsaionary, correlaed, and dynamically evolving over ime. Similar o many oher perishable invenory focused sudies, we consider firs-in-firs-ou (FIFO) issuing policy, i.e., older producs are issued firs o mee demand, which is shown o perform very well in many perishable invenory sysems (e.g., Fries [10], Pierskalla and Roach [31]). Our conribuions in his paper are as follows: i) We firs presen a new approximaion algorihm ha we call he marginal-cos dual-balancing policy for he perishable invenory conrol problem, and prove ha whenever replacing old producs wih new ones in invenory does no increase he expeced oal cos, our algorihm has a worscase performance guaranee of wo, i.e., he expeced oal cos of our policy is a mos wice ha of an opimal ordering policy. ii) In many perishable invenory sysems, he major concern is oudaing; and clearly, replacing old producs wih new ones reduces he chance of producs being oudaed. Therefore, he condiion ha replacing old producs wih new ones does no increase he expeced oal cos is very inuiive; however, i is no obvious when his would be ensured o be rue heoreically. In ha regard, we find ha his condiion coincides wih he opimaliy of FIFO issuing policy: FIFO being an opimal issuing policy implies ha younger producs are more preferred o have in invenory han older ones, hus replacing old producs wih new ones will no increase he expeced oal cos; and vice versa. Furher, given ha direcly checking he opimaliy of a FIFO issuing policy may be difficul, we exend he exising findings in he lieraure on he opimaliy of FIFO issuing policy and provide a necessary and sufficien condiion and several easy-o-check sufficien condiions ha ensure FIFO o be an opimal issuing policy. iii) By runcaing he marginal-cos dual-balancing policy, we presen also a more general class of algorihms ha we call he runcaed-balancing policy. In paricular, we firs prove ha a myopic policy under he so-called marginal-cos accouning scheme provides a lower bound on he opimal ordering quaniy. Then, we consruc he runcaed-balancing policy by runcaing he marginal-cos dual-balancing policy using he specific lower bound we derive and any upper bound on he opimal ordering quaniy. We prove ha when FIFO is an opimal issuing policy, he runcaed-balancing policy also admis a wors-case performance guaranee of wo. iv) We furher compare our marginal-cos dual-balancing policy wih base-sock policies, which are widely sudied in he perishable invenory lieraure. Given ha FIFO issuing policy is always opimal under base-sock policies, we show ha he expeced oal cos of he marginal-cos dualbalancing policy is always a mos wice ha of an opimal base-sock policy. v) Lasly, using real daa for he plaele invenory conrol problem from Hospial Alpha, we conduc exensive compuaional analyses and show ha a) our proposed approximaion algorihms

3 Auhor: Aricle Shor Tile 00(0), pp , c 0000 INFORMS 3 perform significanly beer han an opimal policy ha does no consider he evolving forecas informaion, b) he compuaional performance of our proposed algorihms is subsanially beer han he heoreical wors-case performance guaranee of wo, and c) he runcaed-balancing policy has a significan performance improvemen over he marginal-cos dual-balancing policy as well as oher relevan policies proposed in he lieraure. In he lieraure, many papers have sudied he periodic-review, fixed-lifeime perishable invenory conrol problem (see reviews by Nahmias [28, 29] and Karaesmen e al. [16]). The general muli-period lifeime perishable invenory conrol problem was firs sudied independenly by Fries [11] and Nahmias [25], who boh formulaed he problem as a dynamic program (DP) wih a sae space comprised of invenory levels of differen ages. However, he srucure of an opimal policy is complicaed and finding opimal policies using sandard dynamic programming is compuaionally inracable due o he well-known curse of dimensionaliy. Therefore, laer effors are mainly focused on heurisic policies. Among he developed heurisic policies, he base-sock policy, under which he oal invenory is replenished up o he same level a each period, is paricularly popular due o is simpliciy and near-opimal numerical performance (e.g., Nahmias [26], Cohen [7], Chazan and Gal [5], Nandakumar and Moron [30], Cooper [8], Li e al. [23], Chen e al. [6], Zhang e al. [35]). Oher heurisic policies such as modified base-sock policy (e.g., Broekmeulen and van Donselaar [2]), consan order policy (e.g., Brodheim e al. [1], Deniz e al. [9]), and higher-order approximaion (Nahmias [27]) are also proposed and sudied. However, due o he complexiy of he perishable invenory conrol problem, mos of hese sudies assume ha demand over ime is independenly and idenically disribued (i.i.d.), and none of he proposed heurisics has a heoreical performance guaranee. More recenly, here is a sream of work focusing on approximaion algorihms for sochasic invenory sysems under general demand processes. The pioneering work by Levi e al. [20] sudies a sochasic invenory conrol problem for nonperishable producs. They show ha he proposed dual-balancing policy, which balances he coss of under-ordering and over-ordering under a marginal-cos accouning scheme, has a wors-case performance guaranee of wo. This idea has been laer exended o many oher seings o consider los sales (Levi e al. [19]), seup coss and capaciy consrains (Levi e al. [21], Levi and Shi [22], Shi e al. [32]), remanufacuring (Tao and Zhou [33]), and perishable producs (Chao e al. [3, 4]). Among hese papers ha sudy approximaion algorihms in invenory managemen, Chao e al. [4], which also considers a perishable invenory conrol problem wih no se-up cos, is he mos relevan o ours. In paricular, Chao e al. [4] presen a proporional-balancing policy and a dualbalancing policy for perishable invenory sysems under FIFO issuing policy, and hey prove ha 1) he proporional-balancing policy has a performance guaranee beween wo and hree for he general case, and 2) he dual-balancing policy has a performance guaranee of wo when demand is independen and sochasically non-decreasing over ime. While boh our sudy and Chao e al. [4] focus on developing approximaion algorihms for perishable invenory sysems, our analysis and resuls are differen in he following aspecs: i) We presen new approximaion algorihms for perishable invenory sysems (marginal-cos dual balancing policy and runcaed-balancing policy) ha are differen from he ones presened in Chao e al. [4]. ii) We ighen he wors-case performance guaranee o exacly wo for cases where FIFO is an opimal issuing policy, and show ha he condiion presened in Chao e al. o ensure a performance guaranee of wo (i.e., demand is independen and sochasically non-decreasing over ime) is a special case of ours. Furher, we idenify several inuiive sufficien condiions ha ensure he opimaliy of FIFO issuing policy, and we presen examples where he wors-case performance guaranee of our proposed algorihms is sricly igher han ha presened in Chao e al. [4] (please see deails in 6 and Examples 1 and 2). iii) We furher consider runcaing he marginal-cos dual-balancing policy using a specific lower bound we derive on he opimal ordering quaniy. We remark ha his is an imporan conribuion

4 Auhor: Aricle Shor Tile 4 00(0), pp , c 0000 INFORMS because, unlike he exising resuls in he nonperishable invenory lieraure, runcaion in he perishable invenory case imposes several new mehodological challenges and hence is non-rivial (see also he nex paragraph for more deails). We show ha he runcaed-balancing policy also admis a performance guaranee of wo, and using real daa from a local hospial, we show ha i numerically performs much beer han he marginal-cos dual-balancing policy and he policies presened in Chao e al. [4]. iv) Mehodologically, while Chao e al. build heir analysis based on algebraic argumens, our analysis is based on wo new ideas ha we call he imaginary operaion policy and he dynamic uni-maching scheme, respecively (see discussion also in he following paragraph). In paricular, he exising wors-case analyses for he nonperishable cases are based on a (saic) one-o-one maching beween unis under wo differen policies. However, as saed in Chao e al., he perishabiliy of producs desroys his maching mechanism. To overcome his challenge, Chao e al. urned o an innovaive algebraic approach. On he oher hand, he new ideas we propose (i.e., he imaginary operaion policy and he dynamic uni-maching scheme), a) significanly simplify he comparison of wo differen policies and allow us o say on he rack of uni maching; b) enable us o reach o a very insighful new resul for perishable invenory sysems: The wors-case performance guaranee can be ighened o exacly wo whenever replacing old producs wih new ones does no increase he expeced oal cos (or equivalenly when FIFO is an opimal issuing policy); and c) allow us o capure no only perishabiliy bu also runcaion, which is no considered in Chao e al., bu as we show, i significanly improves he compuaional performance. We believe our ideas are valuable beyond his sudy and can also be applied o faciliae he analysis for oher perishable invenory sysems. The idea of runcaing a dual-balancing policy wih bounds on opimal ordering quaniies is firs proposed by Hurley e al. [15]. However, unlike he dual-balancing policy ha has been exended o many oher seings, he runcaed-balancing policy needs a more sophisicaed analysis and has only been shown o have a wors-case performance guaranee for he nonperishable backlogging case (Hurley e al. [15], Levi e al. [21]). In his sudy, we consider a runcaed-balancing policy in he perishable invenory seing, where challenges arise from boh perishabiliy and he complexiy caused by runcaion. In paricular, firs, he analyses for all he nonperishable cases are based on a (saic) one-o-one maching beween unis under wo differen policies, which rely on he fac ha all invenory unis will be evenually used o saisfy demand. However, his fails o be rue for he perishable invenory case, where unis can simply oudae wihou saisfying any demand. Second, he exising analysis for he runcaed-balancing policy in he nonperishable case relies on he base-sock srucure of an opimal ordering policy. This also fails o be rue for he perishable invenory case, where due o perishabiliy he srucure of an opimal policy is complicaed and depends on he enire invenory vecor. To overcome he above challenges, we inroduce wo new ideas: 1) a bridging policy ha we call he imaginary operaion policy, under which old producs can be replaced wih new ones for free so ha he invenory vecors under wo differen policies can be easily compared, and 2) a dynamic uni-maching scheme, under which unis can be mached and re-mached a differen periods so ha he shorcomings of he exising saic maching approach can be addressed. As we discussed earlier, hese wo new ideas ogeher enable us o overcome he challenges arising from boh perishabiliy and runcaion, and lead o an insighful new resul. The remainder of his paper is organized as follows. In 2, we presen a formal model formulaion. In 3, we presen a marginal-cos dual-balancing policy for he perishable invenory conrol problem. In 4, we prove ha when FIFO is an opimal issuing policy, our algorihm has a wors-case performance guaranee of wo, i.e., he expeced oal cos of our policy is a mos wice ha of an opimal ordering policy. We furher compare our policy wih base-sock policies and show ha he expeced oal cos of our policy is always a mos wice ha of an opimal base-sock policy. In 5, we firs show ha a myopic policy under he marginal-cos accouning scheme provides a lower bound on he opimal ordering quaniy; we hen presen a runcaed-balancing policy ha

5 Auhor: Aricle Shor Tile 00(0), pp , c 0000 INFORMS 5 also admis a wors-case performance guaranee of wo when FIFO is an opimal issuing policy. In 6, we presen a necessary and sufficien condiion and several easy-o-check sufficien condiions ha ensure he opimaliy of FIFO issuing policy. Finally, we presen compuaional resuls based on a plaele invenory conrol problem in 7, and draw conclusions in Model Formulaion. We sudy a periodic-review, fixed-lifeime perishable invenory conrol problem under a general sochasic demand process. Noaion: We consider a produc lifeime of K periods and a planning horizon of T periods. Demands over he planning horizon are denoed as D 1,...,D T, which are exogenous random variables wih finie means, and can be nonsaionary, correlaed, and dynamically evolving. As a convenion, we generally use capial leers o denoe random variables, and lowercase leers o denoe heir realizaions (produc lifeime K and planning horizon T are excepions). A he beginning of each period, here is an informaion se denoed as f, which conains he realizaion of demands (d 1,...,d 1 ) and possibly some oher forecas informaion available a period, denoed as (u 1,...,u ). Tha is, he informaion se f is a specific realizaion of he random vecor F =(D 1,...,D 1,U 1,...,U ). Furher, we assume ha he condiional join disribuion of fuure demands (D,...,D T ) is known for given f. Addiional noaion ha describes sysem saes and decision variables is defined as follows: X k, : he invenory level of age k a he beginning of period,,...,k 1,=1,...,T. X : he invenory vecor a he beginning of period, i.e., X =(X 1,,...,X K 1, ), =1,...,T. Q : he ordering quaniy a period,=1,...,t. Y : he oal invenory level afer ordering and before demand realizaion a period, i.e., Y = K 1 X k, +Q, =1,...,T. Sysem Dynamics: We define he sequence of evens as follows: 1) A he beginning of each period = 1,...,T, he K 1 dimensional invenory vecor X and he informaion se F are observed, based on which Q producs of age 0 are ordered; 2) producs ordered arrive insanly wih a zero lead ime; 3) random demand D hen occurs during he period, invenory is issued o saisfy demand based on he FIFO rule, and unme demand is los (since we assume zero lead ime, our resuls hold equally well for he backlogging case); and 4) a he end of each period, all producs in invenory age by 1, and producs reaching age K are disposed from he invenory. Le X 0, =Q. Then, he invenory vecor is updaed as follows: ( ( K 1 ) + ) + X k,+1 = X k 1, D X m,,,...,k 1;=0,...,T 1. m=k Wihou loss of generaliy, we assume ha he sysem sars from empy (i.e., zero iniial invenory); however, all of our resuls can be exended o consider arbirary iniial invenory levels. Cos Srucure: A each period,we consider an ordering cos ĉ for each uni of producordered a ha period, a shorage penaly ˆp for each uni of sock-ou, a holding cos ĥ for each uni of excess invenory afer demand realizaion, and an oudaing cos ŵ for each uni of produc ha is oudaed a he end of ha period. To eliminae rivial siuaions, we assume ˆp ĉ 0. We allow negaive oudaing cos (i.e., posiive salvage value) as long as ŵ+βĉ 0, where β denoes he discoun facor. We also consider a salvage value for each uni of produc lef in invenory a he end of he planning horizon, and for simpliciy we assume i is equal o he ordering cos ĉ (our resuls can be easily exended o consider any salvage value ˆv as long as ŵ+βˆv 0). Opimaliy Crierion: A each period, given he invenory vecor x and he informaion se f, an ordering decision rule is a funcion from he se of all possible (x,f ) o he se of all

6 Auhor: Aricle Shor Tile 6 00(0), pp , c 0000 INFORMS possible q ; and an ordering policy is a collecion of ordering decision rules a all periods. Le π denoe any given ordering policy. Then, he oal cos under policy π over he planning horizon is: ˆ C(π)= T =1 β 1( ĉq π + ˆp(D Y π π )+ +ĥ(y D ) + +ŵ(x π K 1, D ) +) K 1 β T ĉ X π k,t+1, where X π and Q π denoe he invenory vecor and he ordering quaniy a period under policy π, respecively. Then, our problem is o find an opimal ordering policy OPT such ha OPT arg mine[ C(π)]. ˆ π 3. Marginal-Cos Dual-Balancing Policy. In his secion, we firs inroduce a cos ransformaion o eliminae ordering cos in 3.1. We hen presen a marginal-cos accouning scheme for he perishable invenory seing in 3.2. Finally, we presen our algorihm in 3.3. Unless presened in he main ex, he proofs of all analyical resuls are included in he Appendix Cos Transformaion. To apply he marginal-cos accouning scheme which we presen in 3.2, we firs need o consruc an equivalen problem wih a zero ordering cos. Define he cos parameers for he ransformed problem as: c=0,p= ˆp ĉ,h=ĥ+(1 β)ĉ, and w=ŵ+βĉ. Since we assume ˆp ĉ 0 and ŵ+βĉ 0, all he ransformed coss are nonnegaive. Then, for a given policy π, he oal cos of he ransformed problem is: C(π)= T =1 β 1( p(d Y π )+ +h(y π D ) + +w(x π K 1, D ) +). In he following lemma, we show ha he difference beween he oal coss of he original and ransformed problems is independen of policy π, which implies ha he wo problems are equivalen in he sense ha hey have he same se of opimal ordering policies. Lemma 1. For any policy π, C(π) C(π)= ˆ T β 1 ĉd, wih probabiliy one. = Marginal-Cos Accouning Scheme. Unlike radiional mehods which assign each period all coss ha occur a his period, he marginal-cos accouning scheme, inroduced by Levi e al. [20], assigns each period all coss ha are caused by he decision made a his period. For example, a uni ordered a period may say in he sysem for muliple periods, hus holding coss may be charged for his uni for muliple periods; under he marginal-cos accouning scheme, all hese holding coss are assigned o period. We now presen he marginal-cos accouning scheme for he perishable invenory seing. Marginal Shorage Penaly: Since invenory can be replenished wih a zero lead ime, he marginal shorage penaly a each period is simply defined as he shorage penaly ha occurs a his period. For =1,...,T, given x,f and q, le P (x,f,q ) denoe he expeced marginal shorage penaly a period. Then, we have: P (x,f,q ):=β 1 pe[(d y ) + f ]. Marginal Holding Cos: For = 1,...,T, given x, f and q, le H (x,f,q ) denoe he expeced marginal holding cos a period, which is defined as he sum of all expeced holding coss charged for unis ordered a period. In he perishable invenory seing, since unis in

7 Auhor: Aricle Shor Tile 00(0), pp , c 0000 INFORMS 7 invenory may become oudaed wihou saisfying any demand, he fuure holding coss charged for q depend on he enire invenory vecor x. Thus, similar o Nahmias [25], we le A 0, =0, and for,...,k 1, le A k, be he oal demand over periods,...,+k 1 ha canno be saisfied by he invenory of (x K k,,...,x K 1, ), i.e., he invenory ha would have been oudaed by he end of period +k 1. Then: A k, =(A k 1, +D +k 1 x K k, ) +,,...,K 1. Thus, for k = 0,...,K 1, (A k, +D +k K k 1 m=1 x m, ) + represens he oal demand over periods,...,+k ha canno be saisfied by he invenory of x, and (q (A k, +D +k K k 1 x m, ) + ) + represens he amoun of q lef in invenory a he end of period +k. Then, we have: K 1 [ K k 1 H (x,f,q ):= β +k 1 he (q (A k, +D +k x m, ) + ) + f ], k=0 where he sum over k is defined up o T when +K 1 T. Marginal Oudaing Cos: For =1,...,T, given x, f and q, le W (x,f,q ) denoe he expeced marginal oudaing cos a period, which is defined as he sum of all expeced oudaing coss charged for unis ordered a period, i.e., he expeced oudaing coss ha occur a period +K 1. Noe ha unis ordered a periods T K +2,...,T will no be oudaed wihin he planning horizon, hus we simply define W (x,f,q )=0 for =T K+2,...,T. For T K+1, (q A K 1, D +K 1 ) + represens he amoun of q ha will be oudaed a he end of period +K 1. Then, we have: m=1 W (x,f,q ):=β +K 1 we[(q A K 1, D +K 1 ) + f ]. For a given policy π, le P π,h π and W π denoe he corresponding marginal shorage penaly, holding and oudaing coss a period, respecively. Under a given policy π, x π and q π are boh known for given f. Then, E[P π f ]=P (x π,f,q π ), E[H π f ]=H (x π,f,q π ), and E[W π f ]= W (x π,f,q π). Since he sysem sars from zero invenory, we have C(π)= T (P π+hπ +Wπ ) Algorihm. Now we presen our firs algorihm based on he marginal-cos accouning scheme presened above. Clearly, he expeced marginal shorage penaly P (x,f,q ) occurs due o under-ordering, while he expeced marginal holding and oudaing coss H (x,f,q ) and W (x,f,q ) occur due o over-ordering. Therefore, we define he marginal-cos dual-balancing policy (denoed as B) as o balance he expeced marginal shorage penaly agains he sum of he expeced marginal holding and oudaing coss. More specifically, a each period, given x and f, he marginal-cos dualbalancing ordering quaniy q B (for simpliciy, we also call i he balancing ordering quaniy in he following ex) is defined as he soluion o he following equaion: =1 m=1 P (x,f,q )=H (x,f,q )+W (x,f,q ). (1) Noehaheexisenceofhebalancingorderingquaniyq B isguaraneed,becauseaanyperiod, given x and f, P (x,f,q ) is non-increasing in q ; when q =0, P (x,f,q ) is nonnegaive, and when q goes o infiniy, P (x,f,q ) goes o zero (since demand has a finie mean). In conras, H (x,f,q ) and W (x,f,q ) are non-decreasing in q ; when q =0, H (x,f,q )=W (x,f,q )= 0, and when q goes o infiniy, boh H (x,f,q ) and W (x,f,q ) go o infiniy. Therefore, q B

8 Auhor: Aricle Shor Tile 8 00(0), pp , c 0000 INFORMS is guaraneed o exis when we allow fracional ordering quaniies. The algorihm can be easily exended o consider discree ordering quaniies following a similar argumen as in Levi e al. [20]. We also remark ha our marginal-cos dual-balancing policy is differen from he dual-balancing policy defined in Chao e al. [4]. In paricular, while our marginal-cos dual-balancing policy balances he marginal shorage penaly agains he sum of he marginal holding and oudaing coss, he dual-balancing policy in Chao e al. [4] balances he marginal shorage penaly agains he marginal oudaing cos plus he holding cos ha occurs a period, i.e., he marginal holding cos H (x,f,q ) in Equaion (1) is replaced by β 1 he[(y D ) + f ] in Chao e al. [4]. 4. Wors-Case Analysis. In his secion, we firs build a bridging policy in 4.1. Then, in 4.2, we consruc a new unimaching scheme ha (dynamically) maches unis under wo differen policies on a one-o-one correspondence. Based on hese resuls, we show in 4.3 ha when FIFO is an opimal issuing policy, our marginal-cos dual-balancing policy has a wors-case performance guaranee of wo, i.e., he expeced oal cos of our policy is a mos wice ha of an opimal ordering policy. Finally, in 4.4, we compare our policy wih an opimal base-sock policy, and show ha he expeced oal cos of our policy is always a mos wice ha of an opimal base-sock policy A Bridging Policy: Imaginary Operaion Policy. By Lemma 1, we know ha C(π) C(π) ˆ is nonnegaive and independen of policy π. Therefore, o show ha he expeced oal cos of he marginal-cos dual-balancing policy is a mos wice ha of an opimal ordering policy (i.e., E[ C(B)] ˆ 2E[ C(OPT)]), ˆ i is sufficien o show ha E[C(B)] 2E[C(OPT)]. However, due o he parially ordered naure of muli-dimensional invenory vecors, i is difficul o direcly compare he coss under policies B and OPT. Therefore, we nex propose a bridging policy ha we call he imaginary operaion policy (denoed as IM), which allows us o properly modify he invenory vecors so ha he invenory vecors under wo differen policies become compleely ordered, and he respecive coss can be easily compared. We hen show E[C(IM)] E[C(OPT)] (Lemma 4) and E[C(B)] 2E[C(IM)] (Lemma 6), respecively, which leads o our main resul E[C(B)] 2E[C(OPT)] (Theorem 1). Policy IM is consruced as follows: A each period, given x and f, le he sysem under policy IM follow an opimal ordering policy. 1 Wha differeniaes policies IM and OPT is ha under policy IM, a each period afer ordering and before demand realizaion, producs in he invenory vecor can be moved from older posiions o he posiion of age 0, i.e., old producs can be replaced wih new ones for free. Noe ha since he invenory vecors under policies IM and OP T may be differen a each period, he acual ordering quaniies under he wo policies can also be differen. A each period, le y B and y IM be he oal invenory levels afer ordering under policies B and IM, respecively (noe ha once he rules of movemens under policy IM for periods 1,..., 1 are defined, y IM is well-defined). Then, we pariion he se of decision epochs {1,...,T} ino he following wo subses: T P ={:y B y IM },T H ={:y B <y IM }. The main objecive of consrucing policy IM is o bound he oal shorage penaly of policy B a each period T P and he oal holding and oudaing coss of policy B charged for he unis ordered a each period T H. Since we have y B y IM, T P, he oal shorage penaly of policy B a T P can be easily bounded. Therefore, uni movemens are only needed a T H. 1 Throughou he paper, we refer following an opimal ordering policy o implemening an opimal decision rule a each period given he sysem sae, insead of copying he ordering quaniy from he sysem under policy OPT.

9 Auhor: Aricle Shor Tile 00(0), pp , c 0000 INFORMS 9 The rules of movemens are defined as follows, and an illusraive example is provided a he end of his subsecion. Le T H ={τ 1,...,τ n }, where τ 1 <...<τ n. A he beginning of period τ 1 afer ordering (and before demand realizaion), we simply move all unis in he invenory vecor under policy IM o age 0. A τ 2, unis ordered a τ 1 become of age τ 2 τ 1. Since all unis are moved o age 0 a τ 1, he invenory under policy IM is consumed (used o saisfy demand or oudaed) no faser han ha under policy B. Also, we have yτ IM 1 >yτ B 1 a τ 1. Then a τ 2, he oal invenory of age greaer han K 1 or equal o age τ 2 τ 1 under policy IM is no less han ha under policy B, i.e., K 1 x IM k,τ 2 k=τ 2 τ 1 x B k,τ 2. Therefore, a he beginning of period τ 2 afer ordering, we firs move all unis of age k=τ 2 τ 1 sricly less han τ 2 τ 1 under policy IM o age 0 such ha here are only posiive invenory of age 0 and τ 2 τ 1 under policy IM. We hen move some unis of age equal o τ 2 τ 1 under policy K 1 IM o age 0 such ha x IM k,τ 2 = K 1 k=τ 2 τ 1 x B k,τ 2. k=τ 2 τ 1 Similarly, for any i 2, a he beginning of period τ i afer ordering, we firs move all unis of age sricly less han τ i τ i 1 under policy IM o age 0, and hen for each j =1,...,i 1, move some unis of age equal o τ i τ j under policy IM o age 0 such ha afer all he movemens, we have: (i) There are only posiive invenory of age 0,τ i τ i 1,...,τ i τ 1 under policy IM. (ii) For j=1,...,i 1, he oal invenory of age greaer han or equal o age τ i τ j under policies IM and B are he same, i.e., K 1 x IM k,τ i = k=τ i τ j K 1 k=τ i τ j x B k,τ i,j=1,...,i 1. (2) Based on he rules of movemens defined above, we are ensured o have ha: τ i T H, afer he movemens of unis a τ i, he invenory vecor under policy IM is younger han ha under policy B, i.e., for,...,k 1, policy IM has no more invenory of age greaer han or equal o k. Lemma 2. τ i T H, afer he movemens of unis a τ i, we have: K 1 K 1 x IM m,τ i x B m,τ i,,...,k 1. (3) m=k m=k An illusraive example describing he rules of movemens is presened in Figure 1. In his example,wehaveproduclifeimeofk =3periods,andplanninghorizonofT =4periods.Consider a given sample pah where d 1 =d 2 =d 3 =0 and d 4 =2. A he beginning of period =1, assume q1 B =2 and q1 IM =1. Then, y1 B =2>1=y1 IM, hus =1 T P and no movemens are performed a his period. A he beginning of period =2, assume q2 B =1 and q2 IM =3. Then, y2 B =3<4=y2 IM, hus =2=τ 1 T H, and we move all unis under policy IM o age 0. A he beginning of period =3, assume q3 B =qim 3 =2. Then, y3 B =5<6=yIM 3, hus =3=τ 2 T H. The uni ordered a τ 1 under policy B is now of age τ 2 τ 1 =1, herefore we move one uni of age 1 under policy IM o age 0 such ha he amoun of unis of age greaer han or equal o 1 under policies B and IM are equal. A he beginning of period =4, assume q4 B =3 and qim 4 =0. Then, y4 B =6=yIM 4, hus =4 T P and no movemens are performed a his period A Dynamic Uni-Maching Scheme. Basedon heimaginary operaionpolicy (IM)we consrucedabove, we now inroduceanew unimaching scheme ha maches invenory unis under policies B and IM, which plays a key role

10 Auhor: Aricle Shor Tile 10 00(0), pp , c 0000 INFORMS Policy B Policy IM before movemen Policy IM afer movemen =1 T P (d 1 =0) =2=τ 1 T H (d 2 =0) =3=τ 2 T H (d 3 =0) =4 T P (d 4 =2) unis of age 0 unis of age 1 Figure 1 unis of age 2 An illusraive example o show he imaginary operaion policy (IM) in he comparison of C(B) and C(IM). In paricular, our objecive is o mach he unis ordered a each period T H under policy B o unis under policy IM on a one-o-one correspondence, such ha a mached uni under policy B says in invenory no longer han he corresponding uni under policy IM. This way, he oal holding and oudaing coss charged for he unis ordered a T H under policy B can be bounded by he oal holding and oudaing coss under policy IM. The idea of examining invenory and demand a a uni level is firs proposed by Muharremoglu and Tsisiklis [24], and is firs applied o prove wors-case performance guaranee by Levi e al. [20], where unis under wo policies are mached on a one-o-one correspondence. Similar argumens are also used in all he subsequen sudies on approximaion algorihms for nonperishable invenory sysems (Levi e al. [19, 21], Levi and Shi [22], Shi e al. [32], Tao and Zhou [33]). However, in hese sudies, he maching of invenory unis is saic in he sense ha once a pair of unis under wo policies are mached a some period, he maching is permanen. This approach relies on he assumpion ha all unis ordered will be evenually used o saisfy demand, and a pair of unis, once mached, will be used o saisfy he same uni of demand. However, his fails o be rue in he perishable invenory seing, where unis in invenory may simply oudae wihou saisfying any demand. To address his complicaion, we inroduce a new maching scheme ha we call he dynamic uni-maching scheme, under which, a uni ordered a T H under policy B can be mached and hen re-mached o a new uni under policy IM. The rules of machings are defined as follows, and an illusraive example is provided a he end of his subsecion. Recall ha T H ={τ 1,...,τ n }, where τ 1 <...<τ n. A he beginning of period τ 1, afer he movemens of unis under policy IM (based on he rules described in 4.1), we assign indices from 1 o yτ B 1 for unis under policy B, and assign indices from 1 o yτ IM 1 for unis under policy IM, 2 where yτ B 1 <yτ IM 1. Older unis are assigned smaller indices, and unis of he same age are sored in an arbirary sequence and assigned indices accordingly. Then, we emporarily mach each uni 2 For coninuous demands and ordering quaniies, indices are defined coninuously from 0 o y B τ 1 and y IM τ 1.

11 Auhor: Aricle Shor Tile 00(0), pp , c 0000 INFORMS 11 ordered a τ 1 under policy B o he uni wih he same index under policy IM. Clearly, each pair of emporarily mached unis have he same age (of age 0). Then, a he beginning of period τ 2, consider he following hree cases. Firs, if a emporarily mached uni under policy B has been used o saisfy demand, here mus exis a uni under policy IM ha is also used o saisfy he same uni of demand. This is because yτ B 1 <yτ IM 1 and he invenory under policy IM is consumed no faser han ha under policy B (due o Inequaliy (3)). Therefore, for a emporarily mached uni under policy B ha has been used o saisfy demand, we re-mach i o he uni under policy IM ha is used o saisfy he same uni of demand, and we se his maching o be permanen. Second, if a emporarily mached uni under policy B has been oudaed, is las emporarily mached uni under policy IM mus also have been oudaed (since hey have he same age). We se his maching also o be permanen. Third, for unis ha are sill in invenory a he beginning of period τ 2, we re-define he indices and re-mach hem o new unis under policy IM. In paricular, we assign indices from 1 o yτ B 2 o unis under policy B and assign indices from 1 o yτ IM 2 o unis under policy IM. Then, we re-mach (sill emporarily) all previously emporarily mached unis (now of age τ 2 τ 1 ) and all unis ordered a τ 2 (now of age 0) under policy B o unis wih he same indices under policy IM. Since afer he movemens of unis a τ 2, here are only posiive invenory of age 0 and τ 2 τ 1 under policy IM and Equaion (2) holds, each pair of emporarily mached unis mus have he same age (eiher 0 or τ 2 τ 1 ). Coninuinginhismanner,allunisordereda T H underpolicyb areulimaelypermanenly mached o cerain unis under policy IM if hey are used o saisfy demand or oudaed. For unis ha are sill in invenory a he end of he planning horizon, heir las emporarily mached unis under policy IM mus also be in invenory. This is because afer he movemens a he las period in T H, he invenory vecor under policy IM is younger han ha under policy B (i.e., Inequaliy (3)), which ensures ha a uni under policy IM is consumed no earlier han he uni wih he same index under policy B. We hen se hese machings also o be permanen. Noe ha by consrucion, here are no overlaps in he permanen machings. Furher, as we will show in Lemma 6, any mached uni under policy B says in invenory no longer han is permanenly mached uni under policy IM. Nex, we illusrae he dynamic uni-maching scheme in Figure 2 based on he example presened in 4.1. A he beginning of period =1 T P, no maching is defined. A he beginning of period =2=τ 1, afer he movemens under policy IM, unis under policy B are assigned wih indices from 1 o 3, unis under policy IM are assigned wih indices from 1 o 4, and uni 3 under policy B (ordered a τ 1 ) is emporarily mached o uni 3 under policy IM; unis 1-2 are no mached since hey are no ordered a periods in T H. A he beginning of period =3=τ 2, no permanen maching is defined since uni 3 under policy B is sill in invenory. Afer he movemens under policy IM, unis under policy B are assigned wih indices from 1 o 5, unis under policy IM are assigned wih indices from 1 o 6, and unis 3-5 under policy B (ordered a eiher τ 1 or τ 2 ) are emporarily mached o unis 3-5 under policy IM, respecively. A he beginning of period =4 T P, no new emporary maching is defined; also, since unis 3-5 are all in invenory, no permanen maching is defined. A he end of he horizon (i.e., end of period 4), unis 3-4 under policy B is permanenly mached o unis 1-2 under policy IM since hey are used o saisfy he same unisof demand.uni 5underpolicy B is sillin invenory a heendof hehorizon,herefore i is permanenly mached o is las emporarily mached uni, i.e., uni 5 under policy IM Wors-Case Performance Guaranee. We now prove he wors-case performance guaranee for policy B. As discussed before, we use policy IM as a bridging policy, and show ha he expeced oal cos of policy IM is no more

12 Auhor: Aricle Shor Tile 12 00(0), pp , c 0000 INFORMS Policy B Policy IM before movemen Policy IM afer movemen =1 T P (d 1 =0) =2=τ 1 T H (d 2 =0) =3=τ 2 T H (d 3 =0) =4 T P (d 4 =2) unis of age 0 unis of age 1 Figure 2 unis of age 2 An illusraive example o show he dynamic uni-maching scheme mached unis under policy B ha ha of policy OPT, and he expeced oal cos of policy B is a mos wice ha of policy IM, respecively. Comparison of Policies IM and OPT: Recall ha under Policy IM, an opimal ordering policy is implemened and old producs can be replaced wih new ones for free. Therefore, o show ha he expeced oal cos of policy IM is no more han ha of policy OPT, i is sufficien o show ha replacing old producs wih new ones does no increase he expeced oal cos. This is very inuiive and expeced in mos perishable invenory problems, because a major concern for perishable invenory sysems is oudaing; and clearly, replacing old producs wih new ones reduces he chance of producs being oudaed. On he oher hand, while i is inuiive ha replacing old producs wih new ones does no increase he expeced oal cos; i is no obvious when his would be ensured o be rue heoreically. In ha regard, i urns ou ha his condiion coincides wih he opimaliy of FIFO issuing policy: FIFO being an opimal issuing policy implies ha younger producs are more preferred o have in invenory han older ones, hus replacing old producs wih new ones will no increase he expeced oal cos; and vice versa. We nex formally describe he opimaliy of an issuing policy, followed by he saemen of our assumpion. A each period, given he invenory vecor x, he informaion se f and he ordering quaniy q,lev k, beheamounofunisofagekhaisusedomeedemandaperiod,k=0,...,k 1;le x 0, = q, and y = K 1 x k, +q. Then, v k, x k,,k = 0,...,K 1, and K 1 v k, = min{y,d }. An issuing decision rule is a funcion from he se of all possible (x,f,q,d ) o he se of all possible v =(v 0,,...,v K 1, ); and an issuing policy is a collecion of issuing decision rules a all periods. Then, a FIFO issuing policy is such ha a each period, v k, =min{x k,,(d K 1 x m, ) + },k= k=0 m=k+1 0,...,K 1. Given an iniial invenory level and an ordering policy, an issuing policy is said o be opimal if i minimizes he expeced oal cos among all issuing policies. Le Φ be he cumulaive disribuion funcion (c.d.f.) of he demand a period condiioned on f. Define he inverse of

13 Auhor: Aricle Shor Tile 00(0), pp , c 0000 INFORMS 13 he c.d.f. Φ 1 (z):=inf{x:φ (x) z}, and define he criical fracile ȳ :=Φ 1 ( p ). To compare p+h policies IM and OPT, we sae our assumpion as follows: Assumpion 1. Saring from any period, suppose y max τ=1,...,ȳτ holds a and an opimal ordering policy is implemened a +1,...,T, hen FIFO is an opimal issuing policy, i.e., FIFO minimizes he expeced oal cos a,..., T among all issuing policies. Inuiively, his assumpion says ha if he oal invenory level afer ordering is less han or equal o a hreshold a some period, and an opimal ordering policy is implemened a he following periods, hen FIFO issuing policy minimizes he expeced oal cos from ha period o he end of he planning horizon. Noe ha a sronger sense of opimaliy of an issuing policy requires he issuing policy o be opimal for any iniial invenory level and under an arbirary sequence of ordering quaniies (Pierskalla and Roach [31]). However, we only require FIFO o be opimal for small iniial invenory levels and under an opimal ordering policy, which is a much weaker assumpion. We acknowledge ha in pracice, direcly checking wheher Assumpion 1 holds or no may be difficul. To dae, FIFO has already been shown o be opimal under i.i.d. demand (Fries [10]), which is widely assumed in he perishable invenory lieraure, or zero holding cos (Pierskalla and Roach[31]). In 6, we exend hese exising findings and presen a necessary and sufficien condiion and hree easy-o-check sufficien condiions o ensure he opimaliy of FIFO issuing policy. In paricular, we show ha he condiion presened in Chao e al. (2015) o ensure a performance guaranee of wo (i.e., demand is independen and sochasically non-decreasing over ime) is a special case of ours, and we furher provide condiions and examples where FIFO is opimal and our performance guaranee is sricly igher. Wih Assumpion 1, we now presen a srucural propery on he opimal cos-o-go funcion, which is a key resul for comparing policies IM and OPT. A each period, given x and f, le C (x,f ) be he opimal cos-o-go, and le y = K 1 x k, +q. Then, we have: C (x,f )=min q 0 {pe[(d y ) + f ]+he[(y D ) + f ]+we[(x K 1, D ) + f ] +βe[c +1 (X +1,F +1 )]}. For,...,K 1,for heconinuouscase,le C (k) (x,f ) denoeheparialderivaive of C (x,f ) wih respec o o x k, (he differeniabiliy can be easily esablished following similar argumens as in Fries [10]); for he discree case, le C (k) (x,f ) denoe he incremenal of C (x,f ) caused by a uni increase of x k,. Then, we have he following resul. Lemma 3. Under Assumpion 1, for = 1,...,T, (i) C +1(x (k) +1,f +1 ) 0,k = 1,...,K 1, x +1,f +1 ; (ii) C +1(x (i) +1,f +1 ) C +1(x (j) +1,f +1 ) w/β,1 i<j K 1, x +1,f +1 such ha K 1 x k,+1 < max d. τ=1,...,ȳτ Lemma 3 implies ha when FIFO is an opimal issuing policy (i.e., Assumpion 1), he opimal cos-o-go is non-decreasing in he invenory levels; and if he oal invenory level is small, he incremenal of he discouned opimal cos-o-go caused by a uni increase of an older uni is higher han ha caused by a younger uni, and boh are bounded by he uni oudaing cos. Then, since unis are only moved from older o younger posiions under policy IM (i is no difficul o show ha K 1 x IM k,+1 ( max d ) + holds for all ), i is inuiive ha he expeced oal cos of τ=1,...,ȳτ policy IM is no more han ha of policy OPT, which we formally prove in he nex lemma. Lemma 4. Under Assumpion 1, E[C(IM)] E[C(OPT)].

14 Auhor: Aricle Shor Tile 14 00(0), pp , c 0000 INFORMS Comparison of Policies B and IM: Wih Lemma 4, o esablish he wors-case performance guaranee of policy B, all remains o show is E[C(B)] 2E[C(IM)]. To do so, we firs provide a key lemma as follows, where P π,h π and W π denoe he marginal shorage penaly, holding and oudaing coss a period under policy π, respecively. T =1 Lemma 5. Wih probabiliy one, (i) W IM. T P P B T =1 P IM ; (ii) =1 T H H B T H IM ; (iii) W B T H Proof. (i) For any given sample pah, afer he movemens of unis under policy IM, we have y B y IM, T P. Then, P B P IM, T P. Therefore, T P IM wih prob- T P P B T P P IM abiliy one. (ii) To show ha he oal holding cos charged for unis ordered a T H under policy B is no more han he oal holding cos under policy IM, i is sufficien o show ha under he dynamic uni-maching scheme described in 4.2, all mached unis under policy B (i.e., all unis ordered a T H ) say in invenory no longer han heir permanenly mached unis under policy IM. Unis ordered a T H under policy B can be 1) used o saisfy demand, 2) oudaed or sill in invenory a he end of he planning horizon. Firs, recall ha afer he movemens a each period τ i T H, unis under policy B are assigned indices from 1 o yτ B i and unis under policy IM are assigned indices from 1 o yτ IM i from oldes o younges. Since he invenory vecor under policy IM is younger han ha under policy B (i.e., Inequaliy (3)), each uni under policy IM is consumed no earlier han he uni wih he same index under policy B. Therefore, for a mached uni under policy B ha is used o saisfy demand (call i u 1 ), is las emporarily mached uni under policy IM, which has he same index and age as u 1, is consumed no earlier han u 1. Then, given he FIFO issuing policy, he permanenly mached uni of u 1, which is used o saisfy he same uni of demand as u 1, mus be no younger han u 1. Second, by he dynamic uni-maching scheme, for a mached uni under policy B ha is oudaedor is sill in invenory a he end of he planninghorizon (calli u 2 ), is permanenlymached uni under policy IM is defined as is las emporarily mached uni. Since all emporarily mached pairs of unis have he same age, and furher considering possible movemens from older o younger posiions for unis under policy IM, u 2 says in invenory no longer han is permanenly mached uni. Since he permanen machings are defined on a one-o-one correspondence and he above argumen is rue for any given sample pah, we have H B T H IM wih probabiliy one. T H =1 (iii) By he dynamic uni-maching scheme, for a mached uni under policy B ha is oudaed, he permanenly mached uni under policy IM mus be oudaed a he same period. Since he permanen machings are defined on a one-o-one correspondence and he above argumen is rue for any given sample pah, we have T H W B T =1 W IM =1 wih probabiliy one. Wih he above resul, now i is easy o reach o he following conclusion. Lemma 6. E[C(B)] 2E[C(IM)]. Proof. Le ½( T P ) and ½( T H ) be wo indicaor funcions. Then, we have ½( T P ) + ½( T H )=1 wih probabiliy one, and we have he following resul. E[C(B)]= T =1 E[E[(P B +H B +W B ) F ]]

15 Auhor: Aricle Shor Tile 00(0), pp , c 0000 INFORMS 15 = T =1 T = =1 [ =E [ E 2 E[E[(P B +H B +W B )(½( T P)+½( T H )) F ]] E[E[2P B ½( T P )+2(W B +H B )½( T H ) F ]] 2P B + T P T T =1 =2E[C(IM)], P IM +2 ] 2(H B +W B ) T H =1 (H IM ] +W IM ) where he hird equaliy follows from he definiion of he marginal-cos dual-balancing policy and he fac ha ½( T P ) and ½( T H are deerminisic for given f, and he inequaliy follows from Lemma 5. Based on he above resuls, we now sae our main heorem as follows. Theorem 1. Under Assumpion 1, he marginal-cos dual-balancing policy has a wors-case performance guaranee of wo. Tha is, he expeced oal cos of he marginal-cos dual-balancing policy is a mos wice ha of an opimal ordering policy, i.e., E[C(B)] 2E[C(OPT)]. Proof. Since we have E[C(IM)] E[C(OPT)] from Lemma 4 and E[C(B)] 2E[C(IM)] from Lemma 6, we have E[C(B)] 2E[C(IM)] 2E[C(OPT)], which complees he proof Comparison wih an Opimal Base-Sock Policy. In he previous subsecion, we have compared our policy wih an opimal ordering policy, and have shown ha he expeced oal cos of our policy is a mos wice ha of an opimal ordering policy when FIFO is an opimal issuing policy (i.e., Assumpion 1). In his subsecion, we swich he benchmark o compare our policy wih an opimal base-sock policy, and show ha he expeced oal cos of our policy is always a mos wice ha of an opimal base-sock policy. This resul is noeworhy because as discussed in 1, among he heurisic policies developed for perishable invenory sysems, he base-sock policy, under which he oal invenory is replenished up o he same level a each period, is paricularly popular due o is simple implemenaion and compeiive numerical performance (e.g., Nahmias [26], Cohen [7], Chazan and Gal [5], Nandakumar and Moron [30], Cooper [8], Li e al. [23], Chen e al. [6], Zhang e al. [35]). However, he compuaion of an opimal base-sock policy involves he evaluaion of he expeced oudaing cos for each given base-sock level, which is again inracable due o he large sae space. Alhough many heurisic approaches are developed o compue good base-sock levels, none of hem admis a heoreical performance guaranee. In he following heorem, we compare our marginal-cos dual-balancing policy wih an opimal base-sock policy (denoed as BA), and show ha he expeced oal cos of our policy (alhough iself is no a base-sock policy) is a mos wice ha of an opimal base-sock policy. We remark ha since FIFO is always opimal under base-sock policies (Chazan and Gal [5]), Theorem 2 follows wihou any assumpion. Lemma 7 (Chazan and Gal (1977)). Under base-sock policies, he cumulaive amoun of oudae under FIFO issuing policy is smaller han ha under any oher issuing policy wih probabiliy one. Theorem 2. The expeced oal cos of he marginal-cos dual-balancing policy is a mos wice ha of an opimal base-sock policy, i.e., E[C(B)] 2E[C(BA)].