The Value of Robust Assortment Optimization Under Ranking-based Choice Models

Proof. Consider any tuple of products (i_1,\ldots,i_M) \in S_1 \times \cdots \times S_M. First, we recall the fundamental result in graph theory that a directed graph is acyclic if and only if there exists a ranking \sigma \in \Sigma that satisfies \sigma(i) < \sigma(j) for every directed edge (j,i) in the graph [ahuja1988network, p. 77]. Second, we recall from our construction of \mathcal{G}_{i_1 \cdots i_M} that the directed edges in \mathcal{G}_{i_1 \cdots i_M} are exactly those of the form (j,i_m) for each past assortment m \in \mathcal{M} and product j \in S_m \setminus \{i_m\}. Combining these two recollections, we see that the directed graph \mathcal{G}_{i_1 \cdots i_M} is acyclic if and only if there exists a ranking \sigma \in \Sigma that satisfies \sigma(i_m) < \sigma(j) for each m \in \mathcal{M} and j \in S_m \setminus \{i_m\}. Since

we conclude that \mathcal{G}_{i_1 \cdots i_M} is acyclic if and only if (i_1,\ldots,i_M) \in \mathcal{L}. \square

Proof. Consider any tuple of products (i_1,\ldots,i_M) \in \mathcal{L}. We recall from our construction of \mathcal{G}_{i_1 \cdots i_M} that i_1,\ldots,i_M are the only vertices in \mathcal{G}_{i_1 \cdots i_M} that have incoming edges. Since Lemma B.1 implies that \mathcal{G}_{i_1 \cdots i_M} is acyclic, we conclude that i_1,\ldots,i_M are the only vertices in \mathcal{G}_{i_1 \cdots i_M} that can be reachable from other vertices. \square

Proof. Let i,j \in \mathcal{N}_0 and (i_1,\ldots,i_M) \in \mathcal{L}, in which case it follows from Lemma B.1 that the directed graph {\mathcal{G}}_{i_1 \cdots i_M} is acyclic.

To show the first direction of the desired result, let us suppose that j \nprec_{i_1 \cdots i_M} i. In this case, we observe that the directed edge (j,i) can be added to \mathcal{G}_{i_1 \cdots i_M} without inducing any cycles. For notational convenience, let this augmented graph with the directed edge (j,i) be denoted by \tilde{\mathcal{G}}_{i_1 \cdots i_M}. Since the augmented graph \tilde{\mathcal{G}}_{i_1 \cdots i_M} is acyclic, it follows from [ahuja1988network, p. 77] that there exists a ranking \sigma \in \Sigma that satisfies \sigma(j') < \sigma(i') for all directed edges (i',j') in the augmented graph. Moreover, since the set of directed edges in the augmented graph \tilde{\mathcal{G}}_{i_1 \cdots i_M} is a superset of the set of directed edges in the original graph \mathcal{G}_{i_1 \cdots i_M}, it follows from the construction of the original graph that this ranking satisfies \sigma(i_m) < \sigma(i') for all m \in \mathcal{M} and all i' \in S_m \setminus \{i_m\}, which implies that \sigma \in \cap_{m \in \mathcal{M}} \mathcal{D}_{i_m}(S_m). Since the augmented graph has the directed edge (j,i), we observe that this ranking satisfies \sigma(i) < \sigma(j). In summary, we have shown that if j \nprec_{i_1 \cdots i_M} i, then there exists a ranking \sigma \in \cap_{m \in \mathcal{M}} \mathcal{D}_{i_m}(S_m) that satisfies \sigma(i) < \sigma(j). This concludes our proof of the first direction of Lemma B.6.

To show the other direction, let us suppose that j \prec_{i_1 \cdots i_M} i. In this case, consider any arbitrary ranking \sigma \in \Sigma that satisfies \sigma \in \cap_{m \in \mathcal{M}} \mathcal{D}_{i_m}(S_m). It follows from the fact that \sigma \in \cap_{m \in \mathcal{M}} \mathcal{D}_{i_m}(S_m) and from the construction of \mathcal{G}_{i_1 \cdots i_M} that the inequality \sigma(j') < \sigma(i') holds for each directed edge (i',j') in this graph. Moreover, without loss of generality, let the directed path from vertex i to vertex j be denoted by the sequence of vertices i,j_1,\ldots,j_\nu,j which satisfies the property that (i,j_1),(j_1,j_2),\ldots,(j_{\nu-1},j_\nu),(j_\nu,j) are directed edges in \mathcal{G}_{i_1 \cdots i_M}. It then follows from our earlier reasoning that \sigma(i) > \sigma(j_1) > \cdots > \sigma(j_\nu) > \sigma(j). Since the ranking \sigma \in \cap_{m \in \mathcal{M}} \mathcal{D}_{i_m}(S_m) was chosen arbitrarily, our proof of the other direction is complete. \square

Proof. Consider any tuple of products (i_1,\ldots,i_M) \in \mathcal{L}, assortment S \in \mathcal{S}, and product i \in S.

To prove the first direction of Lemma B.8, suppose there exists a product j \in S that satisfies j \prec_{i_1 \cdots i_M} i. In this case, it follows immediately from Lemma B.4 that there exists a past assortment m \in \mathcal{M} that satisfies i_m \in S and i_m \prec_{i_1 \cdots i_M} i. Therefore, for each ranking \sigma \in \cap_{m \in \mathcal{M}} \mathcal{D}_{i_m}(S_m), it follows from Lemma B.6 that \sigma(i_m) < \sigma(i), which combined with the fact that i_m \in S implies that i \neq \mathop{\SFrm arg\,min}_{j \in S} \sigma(j). That concludes our proof of the first direction.

To prove the other direction, suppose that i \neq \mathop{\SFrm arg\,min}_{j \in S} \sigma(j) for all rankings \sigma \in \cap_{m \in \mathcal{M}} \mathcal{D}_{i_m}(S_m). In this case, it follows immediately from Definition 4.10 that \cap_{m \in \mathcal{M}} \mathcal{D}_{i_m}(S_m) \cap \mathcal{D}_i(S) = \emptyset. Moreover, it follows from the fact that (i_1,\ldots,i_M) \in \mathcal{L} and from Lemma B.1 that the directed graph \mathcal{G}_{i_1 \cdots i_M} is acyclic. Therefore, we observe from the fact that \cap_{m \in \mathcal{M}} \mathcal{D}_{i_m}(S_m) \cap \mathcal{D}_i(S) = \emptyset and from Lemma B.1 that adding the directed edges \{(j, i): j \in S \setminus \{i\} \} to the directed acyclic graph \mathcal{G}_{i_1 \cdots i_M} would result in a directed cycle. Since a cycle visits every vertex at most once, there must exist a single vertex j \in S \setminus \{i\} such that adding only the directed edge (j,i) to \mathcal{G}_{i_1 \cdots i_M} would result in a directed cycle, which implies that j \prec_{i_1 \cdots i_M} i. This concludes our proof of the other direction. \square

Proof of Claim 1. Consider any assortment S \in \mathcal{S}, tuple of products (i_1,\ldots,i_M) \in \mathcal{L}, and product i \notin S. We first observe that

Indeed, the first and third equalities follow from Definition B.10. The second and fourth equalities follow from algebra. The final equality follows from the fact that if i \notin \{i_1,\ldots,i_M\}, then it follows from the construction of \mathcal{G}_{i_1 \cdots i_M} that there are no incoming edges to vertex i, which implies that \left \{ j \in \mathcal{N}_0: i \nprec_{i_1 \cdots i_M} j \right \} = \mathcal{N}_0.

Therefore, it follows from line (Proof) and Proposition B.11 that

where the first equality follows from Proposition B.11, the second equality follows from line (Proof), and the last equality follows from algebra and the fact that i \nprec_{i_1 \cdots i_M} i.

We conclude the proof of Claim 1 by considering the case where i \notin \mathcal{I}_{i_1 \cdots i_M}(S). For this case, suppose for the sake of developing a contradiction that there exists j \in S \cap \mathcal{I}_{i_1 \cdots i_M}(S) which satisfies i \prec_{i_1 \cdots i_M} j. Under that supposition, it would follow from the fact that i \notin \mathcal{I}_{i_1 \cdots i_M}(S) and Definition B.10 that there would exist a past assortment m \in \mathcal{M} that satisfies i_m \in S and i_m \prec_{i_1 \cdots i_M} i. Thus, by the transitive property, we have i_m \prec_{i_1 \cdots i_M} i \prec_{i_1 \cdots i_M} j, which contradicts the supposition that j \in \mathcal{I}_{i_1 \cdots i_M}(S). Because we have a contradiction, we have shown that i \nprec_{i_1 \cdots i_M} j for all j \in S \cap \mathcal{I}_{i_1 \cdots i_M}(S), and so the desired result follows immediately from line (?) and Definition 4.12. \square

Proof of Claim 2. Let \mathscr{G} \equiv (\mathscr{V},\mathscr{E}) be a directed acyclic graph that is a transitive closure, and let i \in \mathscr{V} be any chosen vertex. It is clear that removing a vertex and its associated incoming and outgoing edges from a directed acyclic graph will not induce any cycles. Therefore, it follows from the fact that the original graph \mathscr{G} \equiv (\mathscr{V},\mathscr{E}) is a directed acyclic graph that the new graph \tilde{\mathscr{G}} \equiv (\mathscr{V} \setminus \{i\}, \mathscr{E} \setminus \mathscr{E}_i) is also a directed acyclic graph. Moreover, consider any two arbitrary vertices j,k \in \mathscr{V} \setminus \{i\} which satisfy the property that vertex k is reachable from vertex j in the new graph \tilde{\mathscr{G}} \equiv (\mathscr{V} \setminus \{i\}, \mathscr{E} \setminus \mathscr{E}_i). Then it follows immediately from the construction of the new graph that vertex k is reachable from vertex j in the original graph \mathscr{G} \equiv (\mathscr{V},\mathscr{E}). Since the original graph \mathscr{G} \equiv (\mathscr{V},\mathscr{E}) is a transitive closure, there must exist a directed edge from vertex j to vertex k in the original graph. Since neither j nor k are equal to i, we have thus shown that there is a directed edge (j,k) \in \mathscr{E} \setminus \mathscr{E}_i. Since the two vertices j,k \in \mathscr{V} \setminus \{i\} were chosen arbitrarily, we have shown that the new graph is also a transitive closure. Our proof of Claim 2 is thus complete. \square

Proof of Claim 3. Let \mathscr{G} \equiv (\mathscr{V},\mathscr{E}) be a directed acyclic graph that is a transitive closure, let \mathscr{B} \subseteq \mathscr{V} be a subset of vertices, and define the directed graph \tilde{\mathscr{G}} \equiv (\mathscr{V} \setminus \mathscr{B}, \mathscr{E} \setminus (\cup_{i \in \mathscr{B}} \mathscr{E}_i)). The rest of the proof follows a straightforward induction argument. Indeed, let the vertices of \mathscr{B} be indexed by \mathscr{B} \equiv \{i^{\mathscr{B}}_1,\ldots,i^{\mathscr{B}}_{|\mathscr{B}|} \}. For each j \in \{0,1,\ldots,| \mathscr{B}|\}, we define the following directed graph:

We readily observe from the above definition that {\mathscr{G}}^{\mathscr{B}}_0 = \mathscr{G} and that {\mathscr{G}}^{\mathscr{B}}_{| \mathscr{B}|} = \tilde{\mathscr{G}}. In the remainder, we will prove by induction that each \tilde{\mathscr{G}}^{\mathscr{B}}_0,\ldots,\tilde{\mathscr{G}}^{\mathscr{B}}_{| \mathscr{B}|} is a directed acyclic graph that is a transitive closure. Our induction proof proceeds as follows. In the base case, it follows from the equality {\mathscr{G}}^{\mathscr{B}}_0 = \mathscr{G} that {\mathscr{G}}^{\mathscr{B}}_0 is a directed acyclic graph that is a transitive closure. Next, assume by induction that \tilde{\mathscr{G}}^{\mathscr{B}}_0,\ldots,\tilde{\mathscr{G}}^{\mathscr{B}}_{j-1} are directed acyclic graphs that are transitive closures for any j \in \{1,\ldots,| \mathscr{B}| \}. Then we readily observe from the definition of the directed graph \mathscr{G}^{\mathscr{B}}_j \equiv (\mathscr{V}^{\mathscr{B}}_j, \mathscr{E}^{\mathscr{B}}_j) that the following equalities hold:

Using the above equalities, it follows immediately from Claim 2 and the induction hypothesis that \mathscr{G}^{\mathscr{B}}_j is a directed acyclic graph that is a transitive closure. This concludes our induction proof, and since the equality {\mathscr{G}}^{\mathscr{B}}_{| \mathscr{B}|} = \tilde{\mathscr{G}} holds, our proof of Claim 3 is complete. \square

Proof of Claim 4. Let \mathscr{G} \equiv (\mathscr{V},\mathscr{E}) be a directed acyclic graph that is a transitive closure, and let i \in \mathscr{V} be any chosen vertex from this graph. We first observe that

where the above equality follows from the fact that any subset of vertices S from the collection on line (Proof) must not contain any vertices in the graph that have an outgoing edge to vertex i. For notational convenience, let the collection of subsets of vertices on line (4) be denoted by \tilde{\mathscr{A}}, and let the collection of subsets of vertices on line (Proof) be denoted by \tilde{\mathscr{A}}'. In other words, let

In the remainder of the proof, we will show that \tilde{\mathscr{A}} = \tilde{\mathscr{A}}'.

To show the first direction, consider any arbitrary subset of vertices S \in \tilde{\mathscr{A}}'. For this subset of vertices, consider any two arbitrary vertices k, j \in \mathscr{V} \setminus (\{ i \} \cup \{\ell: (\ell,i) \in \mathscr{E} \}) which satisfy the conditions [k \in S] and [(k,j) \in \mathscr{E} \setminus ( \mathscr{E}_i \cup \bigcup_{\ell: (\ell,i) \in \mathscr{E}} \mathscr{E}_\ell )]. In this case, it follows immediately from the fact that \mathscr{E} \setminus ( \mathscr{E}_i \cup \bigcup_{\ell: (\ell,i) \in \mathscr{E}} \mathscr{E}_\ell ) \subseteq \mathscr{E} that the condition [(k,j) \in \mathscr{E}] holds. Therefore, it follows immediately from the definition of \tilde{\mathscr{A}}' that j \in S. Since the two vertices k, j \in \mathscr{V} \setminus (\{ i \} \cup \{\ell: (\ell,i) \in \mathscr{E} \}) which satisfy the conditions [k \in S] and [(k,j) \in \mathscr{E} \setminus ( \mathscr{E}_i \cup \bigcup_{\ell: (\ell,i) \in \mathscr{E}} \mathscr{E}_\ell )] were chosen arbitrarily, we have shown that S \in \tilde{\mathscr{A}}, and since the subset of vertices S \in \tilde{\mathscr{A}}' was chosen arbitrarily, we have shown that \tilde{\mathscr{A}}' \subseteq \tilde{\mathscr{A}}. Our proof of the first direction is thus complete.

To show the other direction, consider any arbitrary subset of vertices S \in \tilde{\mathscr{A}}. For this subset of vertices, consider any two arbitrary vertices k, j \in \mathscr{V} \setminus (\{ i \} \cup \{\ell: (\ell,i) \in \mathscr{E} \}) which satisfy the conditions [k \in S] and [(k,j) \in \mathscr{E}]. We now suppose, for the sake of developing a contradiction, that the directed edge from vertex k to vertex j satisfies (k,j) \in \mathscr{E}_i \cup \bigcup_{\ell: (\ell,i) \in \mathscr{E}} \mathscr{E}_\ell. Under this supposition, we have two cases to consider. In the first case, the directed edge satisfies (k,j) \in \mathscr{E}_i. However, that would imply that either j = i or k = i, and those equalities contradict the facts that k \in S and S \subseteq \mathscr{V} \setminus (\{ i \} \cup \{\ell: (\ell,i) \in \mathscr{E} \}). In the second case, the directed edge satisfies (k,j) \in \bigcup_{\ell: (\ell,i) \in \mathscr{E}} \mathscr{E}_\ell, which implies that there are directed edges (k,j) \in \mathscr{E} and (j,i) \in \mathscr{E} in the graph \mathscr{G}. Since the graph is a transitive closure, the existence of directed edges (k,j) \in \mathscr{E} and (j,i) \in \mathscr{E} implies that there must exist a directed edge (k,i) \in \mathscr{E}. However, the existence of a directed edge (k,i) \in \mathscr{E} contradicts the facts that k \in S and S \subseteq \mathscr{V} \setminus (\{ i \} \cup \{\ell: (\ell,i) \in \mathscr{E} \}). In all cases, we have proved by contradiction that the vertices k and j must satisfy the condition [(k,j) \in \mathscr{E} \setminus ( \mathscr{E}_i \cup \bigcup_{\ell: (\ell,i) \in \mathscr{E}} \mathscr{E}_\ell )]. Since the two vertices k, j \in \mathscr{V} \setminus (\{ i \} \cup \{\ell: (\ell,i) \in \mathscr{E} \}) which satisfy the conditions [k \in S] and [(k,j) \in \mathscr{E}] were chosen arbitrarily, we have shown that S \in \tilde{\mathscr{A}}', and since the subset of vertices S \in \tilde{\mathscr{A}} was chosen arbitrarily, we have shown that \tilde{\mathscr{A}} \subseteq \tilde{\mathscr{A}}'. Our proof of the second direction is thus complete.

We have thus shown that \tilde{\mathscr{A}} = \tilde{\mathscr{A}}', which concludes our proof of Claim 4. \square

Proof of Claim 5. Let \mathscr{G} \equiv (\mathscr{V},\mathscr{E}) be a directed acyclic graph that is a transitive closure, and let i \in \mathscr{V} be any chosen vertex from this graph. Then we observe that

Indeed, the equality of the collections of subsets of vertices on lines (Proof) and (Proof) follows from the fact that any subset of vertices S in the collection on line (Proof) satisfies i \in S, and so it must contain all of the vertices in the graph which have an incoming edge from vertex i. For notational convenience, let the collections of subsets of vertices on lines (Proof) and (Proof) be denoted by \bar{\mathscr{A}}' and \bar{\mathscr{A}}, respectively. To show that line (Proof) is equal to line (Proof), we first observe that the inclusion \bar{\mathscr{A}}' \subseteq \bar{\mathscr{A}} follows immediately from the definitions of the collections \bar{\mathscr{A}}' and \bar{\mathscr{A}}. To show the other direction, consider any subset of vertices S \in \bar{\mathscr{A}} and consider any vertex k \in S. If there exists a directed edge (k,j) \in \mathscr{E} which satisfies (k,j) \in \mathscr{E}_i \cup \bigcup_{\ell: (i,\ell) \in \mathscr{E}} \mathscr{E}_\ell, then we observe that the vertex j must satisfy j \in \{i \} \cup \{ \ell: (i,\ell) \in \mathscr{E} \}. Since it follows from S \in \bar{\mathscr{A}} that the inclusion \{i\} \cup \{\ell: (i,\ell) \in \mathscr{E} \} \subseteq S holds, we conclude that S \in \bar{\mathscr{A}}'. We have thus shown that line (Proof) is equal to line (Proof). Since the equivalence of lines (Proof) and (?) follows readily from algebra, our proof of Claim 5 is complete. \square

Proof. We observe that the set of vertices \{i \} \cup \{ \ell: (\ell, i) \in \mathscr{E} \} in line (?) of Algorithm ? can be queried and stored as a hash table in \mathcal{O}(|\{i \} \cup \{ \ell: (\ell, i) \in \mathscr{E} \}|) = \mathcal{O}(| \mathscr{V}|) computation time. Therefore, the directed graph \mathscr{G}' \equiv (\mathscr{V}',\mathscr{E}') in line (?) of Algorithm ? can be constructed from scratch in \mathcal{O}(| \mathscr{V}| + | \mathscr{E}|) computation time. By identical reasoning, we observe that the directed graph \mathscr{G}'' \equiv (\mathscr{V}'',\mathscr{E}'') in line (?) of Algorithm ? can be constructed in \mathcal{O}(| \mathscr{V}| + | \mathscr{E}|) computation time. It is easy to see for each S \in \mathscr{A}'' that S \cup \{i \} \cup \{ \ell: (i,\ell) \in \mathscr{E} \} is the union of three disjoint sets, which implies that the collection on line (?) of Algorithm ? can be constructed in a total of \mathcal{O}\left(\sum_{S \in \mathscr{A}''} ( | S| + | \{ \ell: (i,\ell) \in \mathscr{E} \}|) \right) = \mathcal{O} \left(\sum_{S \in \mathscr{A}'''} |S| \right) computation time. It is similarly easy to see that \mathscr{A} \equiv \mathscr{A}' \cup \mathscr{A}''' is the union of two disjoint collections, which implies that line (?) of Algorithm ? can be performed in \mathcal{O}\left( \sum_{S \in \mathscr{A}'} |S| + \sum_{S \in \mathscr{A}'''} |S| \right) = \mathcal{O} \left( \sum_{S \in \mathscr{A}} | S| \right) computation time. All combined, we have shown that the computation time required for lines (?), (?), (?), and (?) of Algorithm ? is

Using the fact that graphs always satisfy the inequality | \mathscr{E} | \le | \mathscr{V}|^2 and the fact that |S| \le | \mathscr{V}| for all S \in \mathscr{A}, the above computation time simplifies to \mathcal{O}\left(| \mathscr{V}|^2 + \left| \mathscr{V} \right| \times \left| \mathscr{A} \right| \right). Since \mathscr{A} \equiv \textsc{RecursiveStep}(\mathscr{G}) is the output of Algorithm ?, and since it is easy to see that | \mathscr{A}| \ge | \mathscr{V}|, our proof of Claim 6 is complete. \square

Proof. Let T(\mathscr{G}) denote the computation time required to run Algorithm ? for any valid input \mathscr{G} \equiv (\mathscr{V},\mathscr{E}). It follows from Claim 6 that T(\mathscr{G}) can be represented by an asymptotic recurrence of the form

where \mathscr{G}' and \mathscr{G}'' are the subgraphs constructed in Algorithm ? on lines (?) and (?). We will now prove that the above recurrence satisfies the following inequality:

Indeed, the above inequality clearly holds in the base case. Now assume by induction that the above inequality holds for all valid inputs graphs to Algorithm ? with up to p-1 vertices, and consider any valid input \mathscr{G} \equiv (\mathscr{V},\mathscr{E}) to Algorithm ? for which the number of vertices is |\mathscr{V}| = p. For this input, we have

where the first line follows from (Proof) and from the fact that \mathscr{V} \neq \emptyset, the second line follows from the induction hypothesis, the third line follows from the facts that | \mathscr{V}'| < | \mathscr{V}| and | \mathscr{V}''| < | \mathscr{V}|, the fourth line follows from the fact that \left|\textsc{RecursiveStep}(\mathscr{G}) \right| = \left|\textsc{RecursiveStep}(\mathscr{G}') \right| + \left|\textsc{RecursiveStep}(\mathscr{G}'') \right|, and the final line follows from algebra. This concludes our proof of Claim 7. \square

Proof of Claim 8. Suppose that \lambda is a solution of the system (?), and let (i_1,\ldots,i_n) \in \mathcal{L}.

We begin by showing that if \lambda_{i_1 \cdots i_n} > 0, then either (i_1,\ldots,i_n) = (n,\ldots,n) or there exists m \in \{1,\ldots,n\} such that i_m \notin \{0,n\}. We will show this claim by proving its contraposition. Indeed,

suppose that i_m \in \{0,n\} for all m \in \{1,\ldots,n\} and that there exists \bar{m} \in \{1,\ldots,n\} such that i_{\bar{m}} = 0. In this case, it follows from (?) and from the fact that i_m \in \{0,n\} for all m \in \{1,\ldots,n\} that i_1 = \cdots = i_n = 0. If i_1 = \cdots = i_n = 0, then

where the first equality follows from (?), the second equality follows from the fact that \lambda is a feasible solution of the system (?), and the third equality follows from (?). We have thus shown that if i_m \in \{0,n\} for all m \in \{1,\ldots,n\} and if there exists m \in \{1,\ldots,n\} such that i_m = 0, then \lambda_{i_1 \cdots i_n} = 0. Note that the contrapositive of this statement is that if \lambda_{i_1 \cdots i_n} > 0, then either (i_1,\ldots,i_n) = (n,\ldots,n) or there exists m \in \{1,\ldots,n\} such that i_m \notin \{0,n\}.

We conclude the proof of Claim 8 by showing that if there exists m \in \{1,\ldots,n\} such that i_m \notin \{0,n\}, then there exists j \in \{1,\ldots,n-1\} such that i_{j+1} = j. Indeed, suppose there exists m \in \{1,\ldots,n\} such that i_m \notin \{0,n\}. Since the inclusion i_1 \in \{0,n\} always holds, the existence of m \in \{1,\ldots,n\} satisfying i_m \notin \{0,n\} implies that there must exist j \in \{1,\ldots,n-1\} such that i_j \neq i_{j+1}. Since we have assumed that the inclusion (i_1,\ldots,i_n) \in \mathcal{L} holds, it follows from (?) and from the fact that i_j \neq i_{j+1} that i_{j+1} must be equal to j. Our proof of Claim 8 is thus complete. \square

Proof of Claim 9.

Suppose that \lambda is a feasible solution of the system (?), and suppose that the inequality \lambda_{i_1 \cdots i_n} > 0 holds for a given tuple (i_1,\ldots,i_n) \in \mathcal{L} with (i_1,\ldots,i_n) \neq (n,\ldots,n). Then it follows from Claim 8 that there exists a product j' \in \{1,\ldots,n-1\} such that i_{j'+1} = j'. From this point onward, we let the product j' \in \{1,\ldots,n-1\} with the smallest index that satisfies i_{j'+1} = j' be denoted by

where the last equality follows from (?).

For the product j defined in (?), it follows from the fact that \lambda is a feasible solution of the system (?) that the following two equalities must hold:

We observe from (?) and from the inclusion j \in \{1,\ldots,n-1\} that the equality v_{j+1,j} = v_{n,j} also holds. Therefore, (?) implies that

Moreover, we observe from (?) and from the inclusion j \in \{1,\ldots,n-1\} that a tuple (i_1',\ldots,i_n') \in \mathcal{L} satisfies the equality i_n' = j if and only if i_{j+1}' = \cdots = i_n' = j. Therefore, (?) implies that

Since \lambda is a feasible solution of the system (?), and since (?) implies that the inequality \lambda_{i_1' \cdots i_n'} \ge 0 holds for all (i_1',\ldots,i_n') \in \mathcal{L}, it follows from (?) that

Since we supposed that \lambda_{i_1 \cdots i_n} > 0, and since the tuple (i_1,\ldots,i_n) \in \mathcal{L} satisfied the equality i_{j+1} = j, (?) proves that the equalities i_{j+1} = \cdots = i_n = j must hold. Moreover, it follows from the right-most equality in (?) that i_1,\ldots,i_j \in \{0,n\}, which together with (?) implies that i_1 = \cdots = i_j. Since (?) implies that i_1 \in \{0,n\}, our proof of Claim 9 is complete. \square

Proof of Claim 10. Consider any i \in S \cap \mathcal{B}_m, and consider any m' \in \{1,\ldots,m-1\} that satisfies the inclusion i_{m'} \in S.

We first show that i_{m''} \prec_{i_1 \cdots i_M} i_{m'} for all m'' \in \{m,\ldots,M\}. Indeed, consider any arbitrary m'' \in \{m,\ldots,M\}. We readily observe from Assumption Assumption that i_{m'} \in S_{m'} \subseteq S_{m''}. Moreover, it follows from the fact that i_{m'} \in S and from the fact that i_m \notin S that the expression i_{m'} \neq i_m must hold. Combining the expression i_{m'} \neq i_m with Lemma 5.8, we observe that the expression i_{m'} \neq i_{m''} must hold. Combining the expression i_{m'} \neq i_{m''} with the fact that i_{m'},i_{m''} \in S_{m''}, we conclude that the graph \mathcal{G}_{i_1 \cdots i_M} must have a directed edge from vertex i_{m'} to vertex i_{m''}. Because m'' \in \{m,\ldots,M\} was chosen arbitrarily, we conclude that i_{m''} \prec_{i_1 \cdots i_M} i_{m'} for all m'' \in \{m,\ldots,M\}.

We next show that the vertex i in the graph \mathcal{G}_{i_1 \cdots i_M} has an outgoing edge to vertex j only if there exists m'' \in \{m,\ldots,M\} such that j = i_{m''}. Indeed, we observe from the fact that i \in S \cap \mathcal{B}_m \subseteq \mathcal{B}_m and from Assumption Assumption that the inclusion i \in S_{m''} holds if and only if m'' \in \{m,\ldots,M\}. Therefore, it follows from the construction of the directed graph \mathcal{G}_{i_1 \cdots i_M} that (i,j) is a directed edge in \mathcal{G}_{i_1 \cdots i_M} only if j = i_{m''} for some m'' \in \{m,\ldots,M\}.

We now combine the above steps to conclude the proof of Claim 10. Indeed, suppose for the sake of developing a contradiction that i_{m'} \prec_{i_1 \cdots i_M} i. We showed previously that the only outgoing edges from the vertex i in the directed graph \mathcal{G}_{i_1 \cdots i_M} are to vertices j that satisfy the equality j = i_{m''} for some m'' \in \{m,\ldots,M\}. Therefore, it follows from the supposition that i_{m'} \prec_{i_1 \cdots i_M} i that there must exist a m'' \in \{m,\ldots,M\} such that i_{m'} \prec_{i_1 \cdots i_M} i_{m''}. Because we showed previously that i_{m''} \prec_{i_1 \cdots i_M} i_{m'}, we conclude that the directed graph \mathcal{G}_{i_1 \cdots i_M} must have a cycle. However, we recall from Lemma B.1 from Appendix ? and from the fact that (i_1,\ldots,i_M) \in \mathcal{L} that \mathcal{G}_{i_1 \cdots i_M} is acyclic. Because we have a contradiction, we conclude that i_{m'} \nprec_{i_1 \cdots i_M} i, which completes our proof of Claim 10. \square

Proof. Let Assumption Assumption hold, let S \subseteq \mathcal{N}_0 satisfy S \cap S_1 \neq \emptyset, and let (\lambda,\epsilon) be a feasible solution for the linear optimization problem (4.13). For each vertex (m,i,\kappa) \in \mathfrak{V}, let

and for each edge ((m,i,\kappa),(m+1,i',\kappa')) \in \mathfrak{E}, let

We begin by presenting an intermediary claim, denoted below by Claim ?, which will provide the key ingredient in the proof of Lemma I.2. The purpose of this intermediary claim is to show that every tuple (i_1,\ldots,i_M) \in \mathcal{L} can be converted into a path (1,i_1,\kappa_1),\ldots,(M,i_M,\kappa_M) in which none of the vertices are elements of \mathfrak{N}(S).

Using Claim ?, we show in the following bullet points that the solution (f,g,\epsilon) is a feasible solution for the linear optimization problem (5.11); that is, we show that (f,g,\epsilon) satisfies each of the constraints in the linear optimization problem (5.11).

• For all m \in \mathcal{M} and i \in {S}_m, we observe that

  \begin{aligned} \sum_{\kappa:(m,i,\kappa) \in \mathfrak{V}} g_{m,i,\kappa} - \epsilon_{m,i} &= \sum_{\kappa:(m,i,\kappa) \in \mathfrak{V}} \left(\sum_{(i_1,\ldots,i_M) \in \mathcal{L}: \; i_m = i, \rho_{i_1 \cdots i_M}(S \cap S_m) = \kappa} \lambda_{i_1 \cdots i_M} \right) - \epsilon_{m,i} \\ &= \sum_{(i_1,\ldots,i_M) \in \mathcal{L}: \; i_m = i} \left( \sum_{\kappa:(m,i_m,\kappa) \in \mathfrak{V}, \rho_{i_1 \cdots i_M}(S \cap S_m) = \kappa} \lambda_{i_1 \cdots i_M} \right) - \epsilon_{m,i} \\ &= \sum_{(i_1,\ldots,i_M) \in \mathcal{L}: \; i_m = i} \mathbb{I} \left \{ (m,i_m, \rho_{i_1 \cdots i_M}(S \cap S_m)) \in \mathfrak{V} \right \} \lambda_{i_1 \cdots i_M} - \epsilon_{m,i} \\ &= \sum_{(i_1,\ldots,i_M) \in \mathcal{L}: \; i_m = i} \lambda_{i_1 \cdots i_M} - \epsilon_{m,i} \\ &= v_{m,i}, \end{aligned}

  Indeed, the first equality follows from our construction of g. The second and third equalities follow from algebra. The fourth equality follows from Claim ?, which implies that (m,i_m,\rho_{i_1 \cdots i_M}(S \cap S_m)) \in \mathfrak{V} for all (i_1,\ldots,i_M) \in \mathcal{L}. The fifth equality follows from the fact that (\lambda,\epsilon) is a feasible solution for the linear optimization problem (4.13).

• For all (m,i,\kappa) \in \mathfrak{V} such that m \in \{1,\ldots,M-1\}, we observe that

  \begin{aligned} & \sum_{i',\kappa': ((m,i,\kappa),(m+1,i',\kappa')) \in \mathfrak{E}} f_{m,i,\kappa,i',\kappa'} \\ &= \sum_{i',\kappa': ((m,i,\kappa),(m+1,i',\kappa')) \in \mathfrak{E}} \left( \sum_{(i_1,\ldots,i_M) \in \mathcal{L}: \; i_m = i, \rho_{i_1 \cdots i_M}(S \cap S_m) = \kappa, i_{m+1} = i', \rho_{i_1 \cdots i_M}(S \cap S_{m+1}) = \kappa'} \lambda_{i_1 \cdots i_M} \right) \\ &= \sum_{(i_1,\ldots,i_M) \in \mathcal{L}: \; i_m = i, \rho_{i_1 \cdots i_M}(S \cap S_m) = \kappa} \left( \sum_{i',\kappa': ((m,i_m, \rho_{i_1 \cdots i_M}(S \cap S_m)),(m+1,i',\kappa')) \in \mathfrak{E}, i_{m+1} = i', \rho_{i_1 \cdots i_M}(S \cap S_{m+1}) = \kappa'} \lambda_{i_1 \cdots i_M} \right) \\ &= \sum_{(i_1,\ldots,i_M) \in \mathcal{L}: \; i_m = i, \rho_{i_1 \cdots i_M}(S \cap S_m) = \kappa} \mathbb{I} \left \{ ((m,i_m, \rho_{i_1 \cdots i_M}(S \cap S_m) ),(m+1,i_{m+1}, \rho_{i_1 \cdots i_M}(S \cap S_{m+1}))) \in \mathfrak{E} \right \} \lambda_{i_1 \cdots i_M} \\ &= \sum_{(i_1,\ldots,i_M) \in \mathcal{L}: \; i_m = i, \rho_{i_1 \cdots i_M}(S \cap S_m) = \kappa} \lambda_{i_1 \cdots i_M}\\ &= g_{m,i,\kappa}, \end{aligned}

  Indeed, the first equality follows from our construction of f. The second and third equalities follow from algebra. The fourth equality follows from Claim ?, which implies that ((m,i_m,\rho_{i_1 \cdots i_M}(S \cap S_m)),(m+1,i_{m+1},\rho_{i_1 \cdots i_M}(S \cap S_{m+1}))) \in \mathfrak{E} for all (i_1,\ldots,i_M) \in \mathcal{L}. The fifth equality follows from our construction of g.

• For all (m,i,\kappa) \in \mathfrak{V} such that m \in \{2,\ldots,M\}, we observe that

  \begin{aligned} & \sum_{i',\kappa': ((m-1,i',\kappa'),(m,i,\kappa)) \in \mathfrak{E}} f_{m-1,i',\kappa',i,\kappa} \\ &= \sum_{i',\kappa': ((m-1,i',\kappa'),(m,i,\kappa)) \in \mathfrak{E}} \left( \sum_{(i_1,\ldots,i_M) \in \mathcal{L}: \; i_{m-1} = i', \rho_{i_1 \cdots i_M}(S \cap S_{m-1}) = \kappa', i_{m} = i, \rho_{i_1 \cdots i_M}(S \cap S_{m}) = \kappa} \lambda_{i_1 \cdots i_M} \right) \\ &= \sum_{(i_1,\ldots,i_M) \in \mathcal{L}: \; i_m = i, \rho_{i_1 \cdots i_M}(S \cap S_m) = \kappa} \left( \sum_{i',\kappa': ((m-1,i',\kappa'),(m,i_m, \rho_{i_1 \cdots i_M}(S \cap S_m))) \in \mathfrak{E}, i_{m-1} = i', \rho_{i_1 \cdots i_M}(S \cap S_{m-1}) = \kappa'} \lambda_{i_1 \cdots i_M} \right) \\ &= \sum_{(i_1,\ldots,i_M) \in \mathcal{L}: \; i_m = i, \rho_{i_1 \cdots i_M}(S \cap S_m) = \kappa} \mathbb{I} \left \{ ((m-1,i_{m-1}, \rho_{i_1 \cdots i_M}(S \cap S_{m-1}) ),(m,i_{m}, \rho_{i_1 \cdots i_M}(S \cap S_{m}))) \in \mathfrak{E} \right \} \lambda_{i_1 \cdots i_M} \\ &= \sum_{(i_1,\ldots,i_M) \in \mathcal{L}: \; i_m = i, \rho_{i_1 \cdots i_M}(S \cap S_m) = \kappa} \lambda_{i_1 \cdots i_M}\\ &= g_{m,i,\kappa}, \end{aligned}

  Indeed, the first equality follows from our construction of f. The second and third equalities follow from algebra. The fourth equality follows from Claim ?, which implies that ((m-1,i_{m-1}, \rho_{i_1 \cdots i_M}(S \cap S_{m-1}) ),(m,i_{m}, \rho_{i_1 \cdots i_M}(S \cap S_{m}))) \in \mathfrak{E} for all (i_1,\ldots,i_M) \in \mathcal{L}. The fifth equality follows from our construction of g.

• Consider any vertex (m,i,\kappa) \in \mathfrak{V} that satisfies g_{m,i,\kappa} > 0. Because g_{m,i,\kappa} > 0, it follows from our construction of g that there must exist a tuple (i_1,\ldots,i_M) \in \mathcal{L} that satisfies i_m = i, \rho_{i_1 \cdots i_M}(S \cap S_m) = \kappa, and \lambda_{i_1 \cdots i_M} > 0. Since Claim ? implies that (m,i_m,\rho_{i_1,\ldots,i_M}(S \cap S_m)) \notin \mathfrak{N}(S) for all m \in \mathcal{M} and all (i_1,\ldots,i_M) \in \mathcal{L}, we conclude that

  \begin{aligned} &&& g_{m,i,\kappa} = 0 \quad \forall (m,i,\kappa)\in \mathfrak{N}(S). \end{aligned}

• We observe that

  \begin{aligned} \sum_{i,\kappa: (M,i,\kappa) \in \mathfrak{V}} g_{M,i,\kappa} &= \sum_{i,\kappa: (M,i,\kappa) \in \mathfrak{V}} \left( \sum_{(i_1,\ldots,i_M) \in \mathcal{L}: \; i_M = i, \rho_{i_1 \cdots i_M}(S \cap S_M) = \kappa} \lambda_{i_1 \cdots i_M} \right)\\ &= \sum_{(i_1,\ldots,i_M) \in \mathcal{L}} \lambda_{i_1 \cdots i_M}\\ &= 1. \end{aligned}

  Indeed, the first equality follows from our construction of g. The second equality follows from Claim ?, which implies that (M,i_M,\rho_{i_1 \cdots i_M}(S \cap S_M)) \in \mathfrak{V} for all (i_1,\ldots,i_M) \in \mathcal{L}. The third equality follows from the fact that (\lambda,\epsilon) is a feasible solution for the linear optimization problem (4.13).

Since f,g are clearly nonnegative, the above bullet points show that (f,g,\epsilon) satisfies each of the constraints in the linear optimization problem (5.11).

It remains for us to show that the objective value associated with (f,g,\epsilon) in the linear optimization problem (5.11) is equal to the objective value associated with (\lambda,\epsilon) in the linear optimization problem (4.13). Indeed, we observe that

The first equality follows from the construction of g. The second equality follows from Remark 5.1 and Assumption Assumption, which together imply that S \cap S_M = S \cap \mathcal{N}_0 = S. The third and fourth equalities follows from algebra. The fifth equality follows from Claim ?. Our proof of Lemma I.2 is thus complete. \square

Proof. Let Assumption Assumption hold, let S \subseteq \mathcal{N}_0 satisfy S \cap S_1 \neq \emptyset, and let (f,g,\epsilon) satisfy the following constraints:

We observe that f can be interpreted as a network flow through the directed acyclic graph \mathfrak{G} \equiv (\mathfrak{V},\mathfrak{E}), in the sense that f_{m,i,\kappa,i',\kappa'} \ge 0 is the units of flow from vertex (m,i,\kappa) \in \mathfrak{V} to vertex (m+1,i',\kappa') \in \mathfrak{V}, and the constraints of the form \sum_{i',\kappa': ((m,i,\kappa),(m+1,i',\kappa')) \in \mathfrak{E}} f_{m,i,\kappa,i',\kappa'} = g_{m,i,\kappa} and \sum_{i',\kappa': ((m-1,i',\kappa'),(m,i,\kappa)) \in \mathfrak{E}} f_{m-1,i',\kappa',i,\kappa} = g_{m,i,\kappa} ensure that flow is conserved through each vertex. Because f can be interpreted as a network flow in the directed acyclic graph \mathfrak{G} \equiv (\mathfrak{V},\mathfrak{E}), it follows from the flow decomposition theorem [ahuja1988network, Theorem 3.5] that there exists a nonnegative vector \pi \equiv (\pi_{i_1 \kappa_1 \cdots i_M \kappa_M}: ((1,i_1,\kappa_1),\ldots, (M,i_M,\kappa_M)) \in \mathscr{P} ) \ge 0 that satisfies the following equalities:

From this point onward, consider any fixed choice of the nonnegative vector \pi that satisfies the above equalities. Given that choice of \pi, let the vector \lambda \equiv (\pi_{i_1 \cdots i_M}: (i_1,\ldots,i_M) \in \mathcal{L}) be defined as follows:

Our first main step of the proof of Lemma I.5 consists of showing that (\lambda,\epsilon) is a feasible solution for the linear optimization problem (4.13). To show that (\lambda,\epsilon) is a feasible solution for the linear optimization problem (4.13), we will utilize the following property of \mathscr{P}:

Equipped with Claim ?, we now proceed to show that (\lambda,\epsilon) is a feasible solution for the linear optimization problem (4.13). Indeed, for each m \in \mathcal{M} and i \in S_m, we observe that

where the first equality follows from the fact that (f,g,\epsilon) satisfies the constraints (Proof), the second equality follows from line (Proof), the third equality follows from algebra, the fourth equality follows from algebra and Claim ?, and the fifth equality follows from our construction of \lambda on line (?). Moreover, we observe that

where the first equality follows from the fact that (f,g,\epsilon) satisfies the constraints (Proof), the second equality follows from line (Proof), the third equality follows from algebra, the fourth equality follows from algebra and Claim ?, and the fifth equality follows from our construction of \lambda on line (?). Since \lambda is clearly nonnegative, our proof that (\lambda,\epsilon) is a feasible solution for the linear optimization problem (4.13) is complete.

The remainder of the proof of Lemma I.5 consists of bounding the objective value associated with (\lambda,\epsilon) in the linear optimization problem (4.13). To develop our bound, we establish the following key property about directed acyclic graph \mathfrak{G} \equiv (\mathfrak{V},\mathfrak{E}).

Equipped with Claims ? and ?, we now develop the desired bound on the objective value associated with (\lambda,\epsilon) in the linear optimization problem (4.13):

Indeed, line (?) follows from our construction of \lambda on line (?). Line (?) follows from algebra and Claim ?. Line (?) follows from Assumption Assumption and Remark 5.1. Line (?) follows from algebra. Line (?) follows from Claim ?. Line (?) follows from the fact that \rho_{i_1 \cdots i_M}(S \cap S_M) \le r_n for all (i_1,\ldots,i_M) \in \mathcal{L}. Lines (?) and (?) follows from algebra. Line (?) follows from line (Proof). Lines (?) and (?) follow from algebra. Line (?) follows from line (Proof). Our proof of Lemma I.5 is thus complete. \square

Proof of Claim 14. Consider any assortment S \in \mathcal{S}, and let \mathfrak{M}(S) \in \mathbb{R}^{{\mathfrak{V}}} be any vector that satisfies the inequality \mathfrak{M}_{m,i,\kappa}(S) \ge r_n for all (m,i,\kappa) \in \mathfrak{N}(S) and satisfies the equality \mathfrak{M}_{m,i,\kappa}(S) = 0 for all (m,i,\kappa) \in {\mathfrak{V}} \setminus \mathfrak{N}(S). We readily observe that the optimal objective value of the linear optimization problem (14) is a lower bound on the optimal objective value of the linear optimization problem (5.11), since the constraints of the form g_{m,i,\kappa} = 0\; \forall (m,i,\kappa) \in \mathfrak{N}(S) from the linear optimization problem (5.11) have been relaxed and since the equality \mathfrak{M}_{m,i,\kappa}(S) = 0 holds for all (m,i,\kappa) \in {\mathfrak{V}} \setminus \mathfrak{N}(S). To show the other direction, consider any arbitrary feasible solution (f,g,\epsilon) for the linear optimization problem (14). Because Assumption Assumption holds and S_1 \cap S \neq \emptyset, it follows from Lemma I.5 from Appendix ? that there exists a vector \lambda such that (\lambda,\epsilon) is a feasible solution for the linear optimization problem (4.13) and

where the first inequality follows from Lemma I.5 and the second inequality follows from our construction of the vector \mathfrak{M}(S). Since (f,g,\epsilon) was chosen arbitrarily, we have shown that the optimal objective value of the linear optimization problem (4.13) is a lower bound on the optimal objective value of the linear optimization problem (14). Since we showed in Proposition 5.11 that the optimal objective value of the linear optimization problem (14) is equal to the optimal objective value of the linear optimization problem (5.11), we conclude that the optimal objective value of the linear optimization problem (5.11) is a lower bound on the optimal objective value of the linear optimization problem (14). Our proof of Claim 14 is thus complete. \square

Proof. We begin our proof of Proposition J.4 by developing an intermediary result, denoted below by Claim Proof, that will allow us to compare the values of \xi_{i_1 \cdots i_M}(S) and \xi_{i_1 \cdots i_M}(S \cup \{i\}) for every assortment S \in \mathcal{S} and every product i which is not in the assortment. The proof of the following Claim Proof, which uses the graphical interpretation of the quantity \xi_{i_1 \cdots i_M}(S) from Proposition J.4, follows from identical reasoning as the proof of Claim 1 from Appendix ? and is thus omitted.

Using the above intermediary result, we now complete the proof of Proposition J.4. Indeed, consider any assortment S\in \mathcal{S} and any product i \notin S. Suppose that there exists a product i^* \in S which satisfies r_{i^*} > r_i and \mathcal{M}_{i^*} \subseteq \mathcal{M}_i. For each tuple of products (i_1,\ldots,i_M) \in \mathcal{L}, we have two cases to consider:

• Case 1: Suppose that i \notin \mathcal{I}_{i_1 \cdots i_M}(S). In this case, it follows immediately from Claim Proof that

  \xi_{i_1 \cdots i_M}(S \cup \{i\}) = \xi_{i_1 \cdots i_M}(S),

  and so the inequality \rho_{i_1 \cdots i_M}(S) \le \xi_{i_1 \cdots i_M}(S \cup \{i\}) holds when i \notin \mathcal{I}_{i_1 \cdots i_M}(S).

• Case 2: Suppose that i \in \mathcal{I}_{i_1 \cdots i_M}(S).

  In this case, we begin by showing that i_m \notin S for each m \in \mathcal{M}_i. Indeed, consider any past assortment m \in \mathcal{M}_i. On one hand, if i = i_m, then it follows immediately from the fact that i \notin S that i_m \notin S. On the other hand, if i \neq i_m, then it also must be the case that i_m \notin S, else we would have a contradiction with the fact that i \in \mathcal{I}_{i_1 \cdots i_M}(S) and the fact that there is, by our construction of \mathcal{G}_{i_1 \cdots i_M}, a directed edge from vertex i to vertex i_m. We have thus shown that i_m \notin S for all m \in \mathcal{M}_i.

  We next show that i_m \in \mathcal{I}_{i_1 \cdots i_M}(S) for all m \in \mathcal{M}_i. Indeed, consider any arbitrary m \in \mathcal{M}_i. On one hand, if i_m = i, then the statement i_m \in \mathcal{I}_{i_1 \cdots i_M}(S) follows immediately from the fact that i \in \mathcal{I}_{i_1 \cdots i_M}(S). On the other hand, if i_m \neq i, then it follows from the fact that i \in \mathcal{I}_{i_1 \cdots i_M}(S) and the fact that there is a directed edge from vertex i to vertex i_m that there must not be a directed path from vertex i_m to a vertex i_{m'} that satisfies i_{m'} \in S for any m' \in \mathcal{M}. We have thus shown that i_m \in \mathcal{I}_{i_1 \cdots i_M}(S) for all m \in \mathcal{M}_i.

  Using the above results, we now prove that i^* \in \mathcal{I}_{i_1 \cdots i_M}(S). Indeed, we have shown in the above results that i_m \notin S and i_m \in \mathcal{I}_{i_1 \cdots i_M}(S) for all m \in \mathcal{M}_{i}. Therefore, it follows from the supposition that \mathcal{M}_{i^*} \subseteq \mathcal{M}_i that i_m \notin S and i_m \in \mathcal{I}_{i_1 \cdots i_M}(S) for all m \in \mathcal{M}_{i^*}. Since we have supposed that i^* \in S, it follows from the fact that i_m \notin S for all m \in \mathcal{M}_{i^*} that i^* \neq i_m for all m \in \mathcal{M}_{i^*}. Moreover, it follows from the construction of \mathcal{G}_{i_1 \cdots i_M} that all of the outgoing edges from vertex i^* are incoming edges to vertices i_m for m \in \mathcal{M}_{i^*}. Therefore, it follows from the fact that i_m \in \mathcal{I}_{i_1 \cdots i_M}(S) for all m \in \mathcal{M}_{i^*} that i^* \in \mathcal{I}_{i_1 \cdots i_M}(S).

  We now prove the desired result for Case 2. First, we observe that

  \begin{aligned} \xi_{i_1 \cdots i_M}(S) = \max_{j \in S \cap \mathcal{I}_{i_1 \cdots i_M}(S)} r_j \ge r_{i^*}, \end{aligned}

  where the equality follows from Proposition J.3 and the inequality follows from our supposition that i^* \in S and because we have shown that i^* \in \mathcal{I}_{i_1 \cdots i_M}(S). Therefore, we have that

  \begin{aligned} \xi_{i_1 \cdots i_M}(S \cup \{i\}) &= \max \left \{ \max \limits_{j \in S \cap \mathcal{I}_{i_1 \cdots i_M}(S) \cap \{ j' \in \mathcal{N}_0: i \nprec_{i_1 \cdots i_M} j' \}} r_j, r_i \right \} \\ &\le \max \left \{ \max \limits_{j \in S \cap \mathcal{I}_{i_1 \cdots i_M}(S)} r_j, r_i \right \} \\ &= \max \left \{ \xi_{i_1 \cdots i_M}(S), r_i \right \} \\ &= \xi_{i_1 \cdots i_M}(S), \end{aligned}

  where the first equality follows from Claim 1 and the supposition of Case 2 that i \in \mathcal{I}_{i_1 \cdots i_M}(S), the inequality follows algebra, the second equality follows from Proposition J.3, and the final equality holds because of our supposition that r_{i^*} > r_{i} and because of line (?), which showed that \xi_{i_1 \cdots i_M}(S) \ge r_{i^*}. This concludes the proof of Case 2.

In both of the above two cases, we showed that \xi_{i_1 \cdots i_M}(S) \ge \xi_{i_1 \cdots i_M}(S \cup \{i \}), and so our proof of Proposition J.4 is complete. \square

Proof. Consider any arbitrary assortment S \in \mathcal{S}. For this assortment, we define a new assortment as

We first show that this new assortment S' is an element of the collection \widehat{\mathcal{S}}^{\textnormal{OO}}. Indeed, it follows from the fact that S \in \mathcal{S} that 0 \in S', which implies that S' \in \mathcal{S}. Moreover, for every i^* \in S', it follows from the construction of S' that there does not exist i \in S \setminus \{0\} that satisfies r_i < r_{i^*} and \mathcal{M}_{i^*} \subseteq \mathcal{M}_i. We thus conclude that S' \in \widehat{\mathcal{S}}^{\textnormal{OO}}.

We next show for each product i \in S' \setminus S that there must exist a product i^* \in S' that satisfies r_i < r_{i^*} and \mathcal{M}_{i^*} \subseteq \mathcal{M}_i. Indeed, consider any product i \in S' \setminus S. It follows from the construction of S' that there exists a product i' \in S that satisfies \mathcal{M}_{i'} \subseteq \mathcal{M}_i and r_i < r_{i'}. Let i^* \triangleq \mathop{\SFrm arg\,max}_{i' \in S: \mathcal{M}_{i'} \subseteq \mathcal{M}_i \text{ and } r_i < r_{i'}} r_{i'} be the product with the highest revenue among all products i' that satisfy \mathcal{M}_{i'} \subseteq \mathcal{M}_i and r_i < r_{i'}. It follows from the definition of i^* that there does not exist any products i'' \in S that satisfy \mathcal{M}_{i''} \subseteq \mathcal{M}_{i^*} and r_{i''} > r_{i^*}. Therefore, we conclude that the product i^* is an element of S'.

Finally, let \{ j_1,\ldots,j_\nu \} \triangleq S \setminus S' denote the products that have been removed from the assortment S. We observe for each tuple of products (i_1,\ldots,i_M) \in \mathcal{L} that

Indeed, the equality follows from algebra. The inequality follows from Proposition J.4 together with the fact that for each \iota \in \{1,\ldots,\nu \}, there exists a product i^* \in S' that satisfies r_{j_\iota} < r_{i^*} and \mathcal{M}_{i^*} \subseteq \mathcal{M}_{j_\iota}. Since the assortment S \in \mathcal{S} was chosen arbitrarily, our proof of Theorem J.6 follows from Proposition J.2. \square

Proof. We readily observe that the collection of assortments \widehat{\mathcal{S}}^{\textnormal{OO}} is a subset of

where we recall from the beginning of §? that \mathcal{M}_i is defined as the subset of the past assortments \mathcal{M} \equiv \{1,\ldots,M\} that offered product i. For each subset of past assortments \mathcal{C} \subseteq \mathcal{M}, let the products that are offered only in the assortments in \mathcal{C} (excluding the no-purchase option) be denoted by

Equipped with the above definitions, we observe that \{\mathcal{N}(\mathcal{C}): \mathcal{C} \subseteq \mathcal{M}\} is the collection of subsets of products that always appear together in the past assortments, and we readily observe that |\{\mathcal{N}(\mathcal{C}): \mathcal{C} \subseteq \mathcal{M}\}| = 2^M. Therefore,

Indeed, the first inequality on line (Proof) holds because the collection of assortments \widehat{\mathcal{S}}^{\textnormal{OO}} is a subset of the collection of assortments \widetilde{\mathcal{S}}^{\textnormal{OO}}. To see why the second inequality on line (Proof) holds, consider any arbitrary subset of past assortments \mathcal{C} \subseteq \mathcal{M}, and let the products in \mathcal{N}(\mathcal{C}) be indexed in ascending order by revenue; that is, let the products that comprise \mathcal{N}(\mathcal{C}) be denoted by i_1^{\mathcal{C}},\ldots,i_{|\mathcal{N}(\mathcal{C})|}^{\mathcal{C}}, where r_{i_1^{\mathcal{C}}} < \cdots < r_{i_{|\mathcal{N}(\mathcal{C})|}^{\mathcal{C}}}. Then, it follows from the definition of the collection \widetilde{\mathcal{S}}^{\textnormal{OO}} that every assortment S \in \widetilde{\mathcal{S}}^{\textnormal{OO}} must satisfy the condition \left| \left\{ i^{\mathcal{C}}_1,\ldots,i^{\mathcal{C}}_{| \mathcal{N}(\mathcal{C})|} \right \} \cap S \right| \le 1. Since \mathcal{C} \subseteq \mathcal{M} was chosen arbitrarily, we have shown that

which proves that the second inequality on line (Proof) holds. The third inequality on line (Proof) follows from the fact that |\{\mathcal{N}(\mathcal{C}): \mathcal{C} \subseteq \mathcal{M}\}| = 2^M and from the fact that |\mathcal{N}(\mathcal{C})| \le n for every \mathcal{C} \subseteq \mathcal{M}. We have thus proven that | \widehat{\mathcal{S}}^{\textnormal{OO}} | is at most (n+1)^{2^M}, which concludes our proof of Lemma J.8. \square

Proof.

We begin by developing an algorithm for constructing a directed graph, denoted by \mathscr{G}^{\textnormal{OO}} \equiv (\mathscr{V}^{\textnormal{OO}},\mathscr{E}^{\textnormal{OO}}), in which the set of vertices in the directed graph is defined as \mathscr{V}^{\textnormal{OO}} \triangleq \mathcal{N} and the set of directed edges is defined as \mathscr{E}^{\textnormal{OO}} \triangleq \{ (i^*,i) \in \mathcal{N} \times \mathcal{N}: \; r_{i^*} > r_{i} \textnormal{ and } \mathcal{M}_{i^*} \subseteq \mathcal{M}_{i} \}. This directed graph has a natural correspondence with the collection of assortments \widehat{\mathcal{S}}^{\textnormal{OO}}, as we readily observe that an assortment satisfies S \in \widehat{\mathcal{S}}^{\textnormal{OO}} if and only if [0 \in S] and [we have that i \notin S whenever there exists a product i^* \in S \setminus \{0 \} and a directed edge (i^*,i) \in \mathscr{E}^{\textnormal{OO}}]. It is easy to see that this directed graph is acyclic and has the property that a vertex j \in \mathscr{V}^{\textnormal{OO}} is reachable from a vertex i \in \mathscr{V}^{\textnormal{OO}} if and only if there is a directed edge (i,j) \in \mathscr{E}^{\textnormal{OO}} from vertex i to vertex j. A directed acyclic graph which has the aforementioned property for each pair of vertices is referred to as a transitive closure.

Our algorithm for constructing the directed acyclic graph \mathscr{G}^{\textnormal{OO}} that is a transitive closure is presented in Algorithm ?. In the algorithm, we first iterate over each product i \in \mathcal{N} and construct the corresponding set \mathcal{M}_i of past assortments which offered that product. We then iterate over each pair of products (i,i^*) \in \mathcal{N} \times \mathcal{N} and check whether r_{i^*} > r_{i} and \mathcal{M}_{i^*} \subseteq \mathcal{M}_i. It follows from identical reasoning as that given for Algorithm Procedure in Appendix ? that Algorithm ? has a total computation time of \mathcal{O}(n^2 M).

We next describe our algorithm for constructing the collection of assortments \widehat{\mathcal{S}}^{\textnormal{OO}} from the directed graph \mathscr{G}^{\textnormal{OO}}. This algorithm is denoted by Construct-\widehat{\mathcal{S}}^{\textnormal{OO}}(\mathscr{M},r) and is found in Algorithm ?. In this algorithm, we first use Algorithm ? to construct the directed acyclic graph \mathscr{G}^{\textnormal{OO}} \equiv (\mathscr{V}^{\textnormal{OO}},\mathscr{E}^{\textnormal{OO}}), and then we invoke a recursive subroutine denoted by RecursiveStep-OO(\mathscr{G}^{\textnormal{OO}}) in Algorithm ?. The goal of the recursive subroutine is to take as an input a generic directed acyclic graph \mathscr{G}^{\textnormal{OO}} \equiv (\mathscr{V}^{\textnormal{OO}}, \mathscr{E}^{\textnormal{OO}}), and for that graph, output the collection of subsets of vertices \mathscr{A}^{\textnormal{OO}} \equiv \{S \subseteq \mathscr{V}^{\textnormal{OO}}: \text{ ifi Sand(i,j) E^OO, thenj S}\}. Algorithm ? concludes by adding the no-purchase option 0 into each of the subsets of vertices from \mathscr{A}^{\textnormal{OO}}. The correctness of Algorithm ? follows immediately from our earlier observation that an assortment satisfies S \in \widehat{\mathcal{S}}^{\textnormal{OO}} if and only if [0 \in S] and [we have that i \notin S whenever there exists a product i^* \in S \setminus \{0 \} and a directed edge (i^*,i) \in \mathscr{E}^{\textnormal{OO}}].

At a high level, the recursive subroutine in Algorithm ? is comprised of two cases. The base case of the subroutine is when the graph has no vertices, in which case it is clear that \mathscr{A}^{\textnormal{OO}} =\{ \emptyset \}. If we are not in the base case, then the aim of the recursive subroutine is to construct the collections \left \{ S \in \mathscr{A}^{\textnormal{OO}}: i \notin S \right \} and \left \{ S \in \mathscr{A}^{\textnormal{OO}}: i \in S \right \} for a chosen vertex i \in \mathscr{V}^{\textnormal{OO}} and output the union of these two collections. The construction of the collection \left \{ S \in \mathscr{A}^{\textnormal{OO}}: i \notin S \right \} takes place on lines (?)-(?) of Algorithm ?, and the construction of the collection \left \{ S \in \mathscr{A}^{\textnormal{OO}}: i \in S \right \} takes place on lines (?)-(?) of Algorithm ?.

Up to this point, we have established that Algorithm ? is correct (that is, it delivers the desired output for any valid input), and we have established that Algorithm ? is correct under the assumption that Algorithm ? is correct. Therefore, it remains for us to prove that the recursive subroutine in Algorithm ? is correct. To prove the correctness of the recursive subroutine, we will make use of four intermediary claims, which are denoted below by Claims ?-?. The purpose of the first two intermediary claims, denoted by Claims ? and ?, is to show that the graphs \mathscr{G}^{\textnormal{OO}'} \equiv (\mathscr{V}^{\textnormal{OO}'}, \mathscr{E}^{\textnormal{OO}'}) and \mathscr{G}^{\textnormal{OO}''} \equiv (\mathscr{V}^{\textnormal{OO}''}, \mathscr{E}^{\textnormal{OO}''}) constructed on lines (?) and (?) of Algorithm ? are directed acyclic graphs that are transitive closures, which implies that \mathscr{G}^{\textnormal{OO}'} and \mathscr{G}^{\textnormal{OO}''} are valid inputs on lines (?) and (?) of Algorithm ?. The purpose of the second two intermediary claims, denoted by Claims ? and ?, is to show that the union of the two collections \mathscr{A}^{\textnormal{OO}'} and \mathscr{A}^{\textnormal{OO}'''} constructed on lines (?) and (?) of Algorithm ? provides the desired output on line (?) of Algorithm ?.

Using the above intermediary claims, we now prove the correctness of the recursive subroutine in Algorithm ?. Indeed, it is clear that the recursive subroutine yields the correct output in the base case where \mathscr{V}^{\textnormal{OO}} = \emptyset. Next, let us assume by induction that the recursive subroutine yields the correct output for all valid input graphs with up to p-1 vertices, and consider any valid input \mathscr{G}^{\textnormal{OO}} \equiv (\mathscr{V}^{\textnormal{OO}},\mathscr{E}^{\textnormal{OO}}) for which the number of vertices is |\mathscr{V}^{\textnormal{OO}}| = p. Let i \in \mathscr{V}^{\textnormal{OO}} denote the vertex from this graph which is chosen in line (?) of Algorithm ?, where the existence of such a vertex follows from the fact that we are in the case where \mathscr{V}^{\textnormal{OO}} \neq \emptyset. It follows immediately from Claim 3 that the graphs \mathscr{G}^{\textnormal{OO}'} \equiv (\mathscr{V}^{\textnormal{OO}'}, \mathscr{E}^{\textnormal{OO}'}) and \mathscr{G}^{\textnormal{OO}''} \equiv (\mathscr{V}^{\textnormal{OO}''}, \mathscr{E}^{\textnormal{OO}''}) constructed on lines (?) and (?) of Algorithm ? are directed acyclic graphs which are transitive closures, which implies that these graphs are valid inputs to Algorithm ? in lines (?) and (?). Therefore, it follows from the induction hypothesis and lines (?), (?), and (?) of Algorithm ? that

where the induction hypothesis can be applied because \mathscr{G}^{\textnormal{OO}'} \equiv (\mathscr{V}^{\textnormal{OO}'}, \mathscr{E}^{\textnormal{OO}'}) and \mathscr{G}^{\textnormal{OO}''}\equiv (\mathscr{V}^{\textnormal{OO}''}, \mathscr{E}^{\textnormal{OO}''}) are valid inputs to Algorithm ? and because | \mathscr{V}^{\textnormal{OO}'}| \le p-1 and | \mathscr{V}^{\textnormal{OO}''}| \le p-1. Therefore, it follows from Claims ? and ? that

which proves that the output of Algorithm ? is

This completes our proof of the correctness of Algorithm ?.

We conclude Appendix ? by analyzing the computation time of Algorithm ?. Indeed, we recall that the computation time required for line (?) in Algorithm ? is \mathcal{O}(n^2M). In what follows, we assume that all directed graphs are stored as adjacency lists. Under this assumption, our analysis of the computation time for line (?) in Algorithm ? is split into the following two intermediary claims, denoted by Claim ? and ?. In our first intermediary claim, presented below as Claim ?, we establish the computation time required for lines (?), (?), (?), and (?) of Algorithm ?. The proof of the following Claim ? follows from similar reasoning as the proof of Claim 6 from Appendix ? and is thus omitted.

In our second intermediary claim, presented below as Claim ?, we use Claim ? to establish the computation time for Algorithm ? for any valid input. The proof of the following Claim ? follows from similar reasoning as the proof of Claim 7 from Appendix ? and is thus omitted.

Our analysis of the computation time for line (?) of Algorithm ? follows readily from Claim ?. Indeed, we observe that the graph \mathscr{G}^{\textnormal{OO}} \equiv (\mathscr{V}^{\textnormal{OO}}, \mathscr{E}^{\textnormal{OO}}) that was constructed on line (?) of Algorithm ? satisfies |\mathscr{V}^{\textnormal{OO}}| = n and | \mathscr{E}^{\textnormal{OO}}| \le n^2. Therefore, it follows from Claim ? that line (?) of Algorithm ? requires \mathcal{O}((n+1)^2 \times \left|\textsc{RecursiveStep-OO}(\mathscr{G}^{\textnormal{OO}}) \right|) = \mathcal{O}(n^2 | \widehat{\mathcal{S}}^{\textnormal{OO}}|) computation time. We have shown that the total computation time for Algorithm ? is

\square

Proof of Claim 22. Consider any assortment S \subseteq \mathcal{N}_0 that satisfies S \cap S_1 \neq \emptyset. For each i \in \mathcal{N}_0, let \bar{r}_i \triangleq r_n - r_i. We observe that

Indeed, the first equality follows from the definition of the predicted expected revenue function \mathscr{R}^\lambda(\cdot) from §?. The second equality follows from algebra and from the fact that \sum_{i \in \mathcal{N}_0} \mathscr{D}^\lambda_i(S) = 1 for all \lambda \in \Delta_{\Sigma}. The third equality follows from algebra. The fourth equality follows from the definition of the vector \bar{r}.

We observe that the optimization problem \min_{\lambda \in \mathcal{U}} \sum_{i \in \mathcal{N}_0} \bar{r}_{i} \mathscr{D}^\lambda_i(S) is the same as the optimization problem \min_{\lambda \in \mathcal{U}} \sum_{i \in \mathcal{N}_0} {r}_{i} \mathscr{D}^\lambda_i(S), except with the revenue r_i for each product i \in \mathcal{N}_0 having been changed to \bar{r}_i. In particular, we observe that the vector \bar{r} satisfies 0 = \bar{r}_n < \bar{r}_{n-1} < \cdots < \bar{r}_1 < \bar{r}_0. Thus, with a suitable reindexing of the products, it follows readily from Assumption Assumption, from the fact that S \cap S_1 \neq \emptyset, and from Proposition 5.11 that \min_{\lambda \in \mathcal{U}} \sum_{i \in \mathcal{N}_0} \bar{r}_{i} \mathscr{D}^\lambda_i(S) is equal to the optimal objective value of the following linear optimization problem: 911 0.8em 0.3em 0.5em 0.3em 0.6em 0.3em 0.3em 0.5em 1em 0 2 11pt plus 0.5pt minus 0.35pt =11pt=9pt

Combining the above analysis, we conclude that

where the first equality follows from line (Proof) and from the fact that \min_{\lambda \in \mathcal{U}} \sum_{i \in \mathcal{N}_0} \bar{r}_{i} \mathscr{D}^\lambda_i(S) is equal to the optimal objective value of the linear optimization problem (?), the second equality follows from algebra, and the third equality follows from the fact that \sum_{i,\kappa: (M,i,\kappa) \in \mathfrak{V}} g_{m,i,\kappa} = 1 is one of the constraints in the linear optimization problem (5.11). Our proof of Claim 22 is thus complete. \square