Abstract
Network revenue management models have traditionally been developed under the independent demand assumption. In the independent demand setting, customers arrive into the system with the intention to purchase a particular product. If this product is available, they purchase it. Otherwise, they leave the system. This model is reasonable when products are well differentiated so that customers do not substitute between products. The independent demand model is harder to justify when there are few differences, other than price, between fares. Indeed, a more general setting is needed when the demand for each product depends heavily on whether or not other products are available for sale. This setting gives the firms the opportunity to shape the demand for each product by adjusting the offer set made available to the customer.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
A. Aouad, R. Levi, D. Segev, Greedy-like algorithms for dynamic assortment planning under multinomial logit preferences. Oper. Res. 66 (5), 1321–1345 (2018c)
A. Aouad, R. Levi, D. Segev, Approximation algorithms for dynamic assortment optimization models. Math. Oper. Res. 44(2), 487–511 (2019)
S. Balseiro, C. Gocmen, R. Phillips, G. Gallego, Revenue management of consumer options for tournaments. Technical report, Columbia University, New York, NY (2010)
F. Bernstein, A.G. Kok, L. Xie, Dynamic assortment customization with limited inventories. Manuf. Serv. Oper. Manag. 17 (4), 538–553 (2015)
J.J.M. Bront, I. Mendez Diaz, G. Vulcano, A column generation algorithm for choice-based network revenue management. Oper. Res. 57 (3), 769–784 (2009)
J. Chaneton, G. Vulcano, Computing bid-prices for revenue management under customer choice behavior. Manuf. Serv. Oper. Manag. 13 (4), 452–470 (2011)
X. Chen, W. Ma, D. Simchi-Levi, L. Xin, Assortment planning for recommendations at checkout under inventory constraints. Technical report, MIT, Cambridge, MA (2016d)
J. Dai, W. Ding, A. Kleywegt, X. Wang, Y. Zhang, Choice based revenue management for parallel flights. Technical report, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA (2015)
J.B. Feldman, H. Topaloglu, Revenue management under the Markov chain choice model. Oper. Res. 65 (5), 1322–1342 (2017)
G. Gallego, G. Iyengar, R. Phillips, A. Dubey, Managing flexible products on a network. Computational Optimization Research Center Technical Report TR-2004-01, Columbia University (2004)
G. Gallego, R. Ratliff, S. Shebalov, A general attraction model and sales-based linear program for network revenue management under consumer choice. Oper. Res. 63 (1), 212–232 (2015)
G. Gallego, A. Li, V.A. Truong, X. Wang, Online bipartite matching with customer choice. Technical report, Columbia University, New York, NY (2016b)
V. Gaur, D. Honhon, Assortment planning and inventory decisions under a locational choice model. Manag. Sci. 52 (10), 1528–1543 (2006)
N. Golrezaei, H. Nazerzadeh, P. Rusmevichientong, Real-time optimization of personalized assortments. Manag. Sci. 60 (6), 1532–1551 (2014)
V. Goyal, R. Levi, D. Segev, Near-optimal algorithms for the assortment planning problem under dynamic substitution and stochastic demand. Oper. Res. 64 (1), 219–235 (2016)
D. Honhon, S. Seshadri, Fixed vs. random proportions demand models for the assortment planning problem under stockout-based substitution. Manuf. Serv. Oper. Manag. 15 (3), 378–386 (2013)
D. Honhon, V. Gaur, S. Seshadri, Assortment planning and inventory decisions under stockout-based substitution. Oper. Res. 58 (5), 1364–1379 (2010)
S. Jasin, S. Kumar, A re-solving heristic with bounded revenue loss for network revenue management with customer choice. Math. Oper. Res. 37 (2), 313–345 (2012)
S. Kunnumkal, Randomization approaches for network revenue management with customer choice behavior. Prod. Oper. Manag. 23 (9), 1617–1633 (2014)
S. Kunnumkal, K. Talluri, A strong Lagrangian relaxation for general discrete-choice network revenue management. Technical report, Indian School of Business, Hyderabad (2015a)
S. Kunnumkal, K. Talluri, Choice network revenue management based on new compact formulations. Technical report, Indian School of Business, Hyderabad (2015b)
S. Kunnumkal, H. Topaloglu, A refined deterministic linear program for the network revenue management problem with customer choice behavior. Nav. Res. Logist. 55 (6), 563–580 (2008)
S. Kunnumkal, H. Topaloglu, A new dynamic programming decomposition method for the network revenue management problem with customer choice behavior. Prod. Oper. Manag. 19 (5), 575–590 (2010a)
S. Kunnumkal, H. Topaloglu, A randomized linear program for the network revenue management problem with customer choice behavior. J. Revenue Pricing Manag. 10 (5), 455–470 (2011a)
Q. Liu, G. van Ryzin, On the choice-based linear programming model for network revenue management. Manuf. Serv. Oper. Manag. 10 (2), 288–310 (2008a)
S. Mahajan, G.J. van Ryzin, Stocking retail assortments under dynamic consumer substitution. Oper. Res. 49 (3), 334–351 (2001)
J. Meissner, A. Strauss, K. Talluri, An enhanced concave program relaxation for choice network revenue management. Prod. Oper. Manag. 22 (1), 71–87 (2013)
D. Segev, Assortment planning with nested preferences: dynamic programming with distributions as states? Algorithmica 81 (1), 393–417 (2019)
A.K. Strauss, K. Talluri, Tractable consideration set structures for assortment optimization and network revenue management. Prod. Oper. Manag. 26 (7), 1359–1368 (2017)
K. Talluri, New formulations for choice network revenue management. INFORMS J. Comput. 26 (2), 401–413 (2014)
H. Topaloglu, Joint stocking and product offer decisions under the multinomial logit model. Prod. Oper. Manag. 22 (5), 1182–1199 (2013)
G.J. van Ryzin, S. Mahajan, On the relationship between inventory costs and variety benefits in retailassortments. Manag. Sci. 45 (11), 1496–1509 (1999)
G.J. van Ryzin, G. Vulcano, Computing virtual nesting controls for network revenue management under customer choice behavior. Manuf. Serv. Oper. Manag. 10 (3), 448–467 (2008b)
G. Vulcano, G.J. van Ryzin, W. Chaar, Choice-based revenue management: an empirical study of estimation and optimization. Manuf. Serv. Oper. Manag. 12 (3), 371–392 (2010)
D. Zhang, An improved dynamic programming decomposition approach for network revenue management. Manuf. Serv. Oper. Manag. 13 (1), 35–52 (2011)
D. Zhang, D. Adelman, An approximate dynamic programming approach to network revenue management with customer choice. Transp. Sci. 43 (3), 381–394 (2009)
D. Zhang, W. Cooper, Revenue management for parallel flights with customer choice behavior. Oper. Res. 53 (3), 415–431 (2005)
D. Zhang, T. Vossen, Reductions of approximate linear programs for network revenue management. Oper. Res. 63 (6), 1352–1371 (2015)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Appendix
Appendix
Proof of Theorem 7.1
Under the optimal policy, let \({\mathcal T}(S)\) be the set of time points over the sales horizon during which set S is offered, and for each j ∈ S, let X j(S) denote the number of sales for ODF j during the time that the set S is offered. Note that X j(S) is a thinned Poisson random variable with mean \(\pi _j(S) \int _{{\mathcal T}(S)} \lambda _t {\,} dt\), so \(\mathbb E[X_j(S)]\) is equal to \(\varLambda \pi _j(S) {\,} \mathbb E[\int _{{\mathcal T}(S)} \lambda _t {\,} dt/\varLambda ] = \varLambda \pi _j(S) {\,} \tau ^*(S)\), where \(\tau ^*(S) := \mathbb E[\int _{{\mathcal T}(S)} \lambda _t {\,} dt/\varLambda ]\) is the expected proportion of customers offered set S during the sales horizon by the optimal policy. By construction τ ∗(S) ≥ 0 and ∑S⊆N τ ∗(S) = 1. The total expected revenue obtained by the optimal policy is given by
Since the optimal policy has to obey the capacity constraints, we have ∑S⊆N∑j ∈ N A j X j(S) ≤ c. Taking expectations, it follows that
It follows that {τ ∗(S) : S ⊆ N} is a feasible solution to problem (7.5) providing the objective value V (T, c) for this problem. This implies that the optimal objective value of problem (7.5) is at least V (T, c).
Proof of Theorem 7.6
We show the result by using induction. One can check that the result holds at time period 1, which is the time period in the discrete-time dynamic programming formulation right before the departure time. Assuming that the result holds at time period t − 1, we show that the result holds at time period t as well. We let S ∗ be the optimal subset of ODF’s to offer in state (t, x) in the exact dynamic programming formulation of the network revenue management problem. In this case, noting the dynamic program in (7.2), it follows that
where the second equality follows from the fact that ∑i ∈ M α ij = p j for all j ∈ N and arranging the terms, whereas the inequality is by the induction assumption. Rearranging the terms on the right side of the chain of inequalities above, the right side of the chain of inequalities is given by
Thus, we have \(V(t,x) \leq \sum _{i \in M} v_i^\alpha (t,x_i)\), completing the induction argument.
Proof of Theorem 7.2
Let τ ∗ = {τ ∗(S) : S ⊆ N} be an optimal solution to problem (7.5). We consider the solution \({\hat x} = \{ {\hat x}_j : j = 0,1,\ldots ,n\}\) for problem (7.6), where \({\hat x}_j\) is defined as \({\hat x}_j = \sum _{S \subseteq N} \pi _j(S) {\,} \tau ^*(S)\) for all j = 0, 1, …, n. First, we will now show that \({\hat x}\) is a feasible solution to problem (7.6) and provides an objective value of \({\bar V}(T,c)\) for this problem, which implies that \({\tilde V}(T,c) \geq {\bar V}(T,c)\).
By the definition of \({\hat x}\), \(\varLambda \sum _{j \in N} a_{ij} {\,} {\hat x}_j = \varLambda \sum _{j \in N} \sum _{S \subseteq N} a_{ij} {\,} \pi _j(S) {\,} \tau ^*(S) \leq c_i\) for all i ∈ M, where the inequality uses the fact that τ ∗ is a feasible solution to problem (7.5). Thus, the solution \({\hat x}\) satisfies the first set of constraints in problem (7.6). Similarly, using the fact that ∑j ∈ N π j(S) + π 0(S) = 1 for all S ⊆ N and ∑S⊆N τ ∗(S) = 1, we obtain \(\sum _{j \in N} {\hat x}_j + x_0 = \sum _{j \in N} \sum _{S \subseteq N} \pi _j(S) {\,} \tau ^*(S) + \sum _{S \subseteq N} \pi _0(S) {\,} \tau ^*(S) = \sum _{S \subseteq N} (\sum _{j \in N} \pi _j(S) + \pi _0(S)) {\,} \tau ^*(S) = 1\), which implies that the solution \({\hat x}\) satisfies the second constraint in problem (7.6). Finally, if j ∈ S, then π j(S)∕v j = 1∕(v 0 + V (S)) = π 0(S)∕v 0, whereas if j∉S, then π j(S)∕v j = 0. Thus, we obtain \({\hat x}_j / v_j = \sum _{S \subseteq N} \pi _j(S) {\,} \tau ^*(S) / v_j = \sum _{S \subseteq N} \mathbf {1}(j \in S) {\,} \pi _0(S) {\,} \tau ^*(S) / v_0 \leq \sum _{S \subseteq N} \pi _0(S) {\,} \tau ^*(S) / v_0 = {\hat x}_0 / v_0 \) for all j = 1, …, n, which shows that the solution \({\hat x}\) satisfies the third set of constraints in problem (7.6). The discussion so far implies that \({\hat x}\) is a feasible solution to problem (7.6). Furthermore, we have \(\varLambda \sum _{j \in N} p_j {\,} {\hat x}_j = \varLambda \sum _{j \in N} \sum _{S \subseteq N} p_j {\,} \pi _j(S) {\,} \tau ^*(S) = {\bar V}(T,c)\), where the last equality uses the fact that τ ∗ is an optimal solution to problem (7.5).
Second, let \(x^* = \{ x_j^* : j = 0,1,\ldots ,n \}\) be an optimal solution to problem (7.6). We reindex the products such that \(x_1^* / v_1 \geq x_2^* /v_2 \geq \ldots \geq x_n^* / v_n\). Noting the third set of constraints in problem (7.6), we also have \(x_0^* / v_0 \geq x_1^* / v_1 \geq x_2^* /v_2 \geq \ldots \geq x_n^* / v_n\). Label the sets S 0 = ∅ and S j = {1, 2, …, j} for all j = 1, …, n. Construct a solution \(\hat {\tau } = \{\hat {\tau }(S) : S \subseteq N\}\) to problem (7.5) by setting
for all j = 0, 1, …, n with the convention that \(\hat {\tau }(S_n) = [x_n^* / v_n] {\,} V(S_n)\). Set \(\hat {\tau }(S) = 0\) for all S∉{S 0, S 1, …, S n}. We will show that \(\hat {\tau }\) is a feasible solution to problem (7.5) and provides an objective value of \({\tilde V}(T,c)\) for this problem, in which case, we obtain \({\bar V}(T,c) \geq {\tilde V}(T,c)\).
Using the definition of \(\hat {\tau }(S)\) and noting that ODF j is in the sets S j, S j+1, …, S n but not in S 0, S 1, …, S j−1, we have
where use the definition of π j(S) in the second equality above. In this case, we have \(\varLambda \sum _{S \subseteq N} \sum _{j \in N} a_{ij} {\,} \pi _j(S) {\,} \hat {\tau }(S) = \varLambda \sum _{j \in N} a_{ij} {\,} (\sum _{S \subseteq N} \pi _j(S) {\,} \hat {\tau }(S)) = \varLambda \sum _{j \in N} a_{ij} {\,} x_j^* \leq c_i\), where the last inequality uses the fact that x ∗ is a feasible solution to problem (7.6). So, the solution \(\hat {\tau }\) satisfies the first set of constraints in problem (7.5). On the other hand, we have
where the third equality follows by arranging the terms, the fourth equality is by the fact that V (S j) − V (S j−1) = v j, and the fifth equality uses the fact that x ∗ satisfies the second constraint in problem (7.6). Thus, the solution \(\hat {\tau }\) satisfies the second constraint in problem (7.5). So, \(\hat {\tau }\) is a feasible solution to problem (7.5). Finally, we have \(\varLambda {\,} \sum _{S \subseteq N} \sum _{j \in N} p_j {\,} \pi _j(S) {\,} \hat {\tau }(S) = \varLambda {\,} \sum _{j \in N} p_j {\,} x_j^* = {\tilde V}(T,c)\), where the first equality uses (7.12) and the second equality uses the fact that x ∗ is an optimal solution to problem (7.6).
Proof of Theorem 7.3
Letting z = {z i : i ∈ M} and β, respectively, be the dual variables associated with the first and second sets of constraints in problem (7.5) and expanding the values of R(S) and A(S) by using their definitions, the dual of problem (7.5) is
Arranging the terms, we can write the first set of constraints above succinctly as
whereas before, R(S, A′z) =∑j ∈ S(p j −∑i ∈ M a ij z i) π j(S).
Because problem (7.13) is a minimization problem and the objective function coefficient of the decision variable β is positive, the decision variable β takes the value \(\varLambda {\mathcal {R}}(A'z)\). Thus, problem (7.13) is equivalent to
The maximization problem above is an assortment optimization problem, where the revenue associated with ODF j is p j −∑i ∈ M a ij z i and the customers make their choices according to the MC choice model. Using the discussion in assortment optimization problems under the MC choice model, we know that the optimal objective value of this assortment optimization problem can be obtained by solving the linear program
where the second problem above is a linear program involving the decision variables v = {v j : j ∈ N}. Thus, problem (7.14) can be written as a two-level problem, where minimize at both levels, the decision variables at the outer level are z and the decision variables at the inner level are v. Since we minimize at both levels, we can solve this problem as a single-level problem, simultaneously minimizing over the decision variables z and v to obtain the problem
Letting {Λ x j : j ∈ N} and {Λ y j : j ∈ M}, respectively, be the dual variables associated with the two sets of constraints above and writing down the dual of this problem, we immediately obtain problem (7.7). Therefore, the optimal objective value of problem (7.7) is equal to the optimal objective value of the problem above, as desired.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Gallego, G., Topaloglu, H. (2019). Network Revenue Management with Dependent Demands. In: Revenue Management and Pricing Analytics. International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, vol 279. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-9606-3_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-9606-3_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4939-9604-9
Online ISBN: 978-1-4939-9606-3
eBook Packages: Business and ManagementBusiness and Management (R0)