Retailer Transshipment versus Central Depot Allocation for Supply Network Design

We consider a supply chain structure with shipments from an external warehouse directly to retailers and compare two enhancement options: costly transshipment among retailers after demand has been realized vs. cost‐free allocation to the retailers from the development of a centralized depot. Stochastic programming models are developed for both the transshipment and allocation structures. We study the impact of cost parameters and demand coefficient of variation on both system structures. Our results show an increasing convex relationship between average costs and demand coefficient of variation, and furthermore that this increase is more pronounced for the allocation structure. We employ simulation and nonlinear search techniques to computationally compare the cost performance of allocation and transshipment structures under a wide range of system parameters such as demand uncertainty and correlation; lead times from the external warehouse to retailers, from warehouse to central depot, and from depot to retailers; and transshipment, holding, and penalty costs. The transshipment approach is found to outperform allocation for a broad range of parameter inputs including many situations for which transshipment is not an economically sound decision for a single period. The insights provided enable the manager to choose whether to invest in reducing lead times or demand uncertainty and assist in the selection of investments across identical and nonidentical retailers.     

Use of prior information for estimating the variance components

The MINQUE and its modifications are considered for estimating the variances of the balanced one-way random effects model. The effects of the a priori values on the estimators of the variances are examined in detail. The Mean Square Errors of the estimators are compared for variations in the prior values of the unknown variances.     

Response predictions in regressions on panel data

In this paper we consider the problem of obtaining best linear unbiased estimators of individual response coefficients in a Random Coefficient Linear Regression (RCR} Model, comparing alternative estimators for these response vectors through a simulation study. We also provide an empirical example that illustrates the estimation procedure proposed here.     

Alternative tests for heteroscedasticity of disturbances:a comparative study

This paper presents three small sample tests for testing the heteroscedasticity among regression disturbances. The power of these tests are compared with two of the leading tests for this hypothesis, one by Goldfeld and Quandt [5] and the other by Theil [17]. We also provide a heuristic method of selecting the number of middle observations to be deleted for the Goldfeld-Quandt type of tests.     

On the use of the scholz-sievers method for dlstribution-free inference about the difference in slopes of two regression lines

A simple adaptation of a distribution-free method due to Scholz (1978) and Sievers (1978) for inference in a single regression setting is proposed for inference about the difference in slopes of two regression lines. We assume that the data are obtained from a designed experiment with common regression constants. A comparison of the proposed method to its competitors-one due to Hollander and the other due to Rao and Gore-indicates superiority of the new method.     

A rank test for stochastically ordered alternatives

A rank test based on the number of ‘near-matches’ among within-block rankings is proposed for stochastically ordered alternatives in a randomized block design with t treatments and b blocks. The asymptotic relative efficiency of this test with respect to the Page test is computed as number of blocks increases to infinity. A sequential analog of the above test procedure is also considered. A repeated significance test procedure is developed and average sample number is computed asymptotically under the null hypothesis as well as under a sequence of contiguous alternatives.     

Burr-XII Distribution Parametric Estimation and Estimation of Reliability of Multicomponent Stress-Strength

In this paper, we estimate multicomponent stress-strength reliability by assuming Burr-XII distribution. The research methodology adopted here is to estimate the parameter using maximum likelihood estimation. Reliability is estimated using the maximum likelihood method of estimation and results are compared using the Monte Carlo simulation for small samples. Using real data sets we illustrate the procedure clearly.     

Pseudo-empirical Bayes estimation of small area means under a nested error linear regression model with functional measurement errors

Small area estimation is studied under a nested error linear regression model with area level covariate subject to measurement error. Ghosh and Sinha (2007) obtained a pseudo-Bayes (PB) predictor of a small area mean and a corresponding pseudo-empirical Bayes (PEB) predictor, using the sample means of the observed covariate values to estimate the true covariate values. In this paper, we first derive an efficient PB predictor by using all the available data to estimate true covariate values. We then obtain a corresponding PEB predictor and show that it is asymptotically “optimal”. In addition, we employ a jackknife method to estimate the mean squared prediction error (MSPE) of the PEB predictor. Finally, we report the results of a simulation study on the performance of our PEB predictor and associated jackknife MSPE estimator. Our results show that the proposed PEB predictor can lead to significant gain in efficiency over the previously proposed PEB predictor. Area level models are also studied.     

Rejoinder to 'Ahmed, M.S. (1998). A note on regression-type estimators using multiple auxiliary information.'

In the estimators t ₃ , t ₄ , t ₅ of Mukerjee, Rao & Vijayan (1987), b _{y x} and b _{y z} are partial regression coefficients of y on x and z , respectively, based on the smaller sample. With the above interpretation of b _{y x} and b _{y z} in t ₃ , t ₄ , t ₅ , all the calculations in Mukerjee at al. (1987) are correct. In this connection, we also wish to make it explicit that b _{x z} in t ₅ is an ordinary and not a partial regression coefficient. The 'corrected' MSEs of t ₃ , t ₄ , t ₅ , as given in Ahmed (1998 Section 3) are computed assuming that our b _{y x} and b _{y z} are ordinary and not partial regression coefficients. Indeed, we had no intention of giving estimators using the corresponding ordinary regression coefficients which would lead to estimators inferior to those given by Kiregyera (1984). We accept responsibility for any notational confusion created by us and express regret to readers who have been confused by our notation. Finally, in consideration of the above, it may be noted that Tripathi & Ahmed's (1995) estimator t ₀ , quoted also in Ahmed (1998), is no better than t ₅ of Mukerjee at al. (1987).