Constant-Factor Algorithms for Revenue Management with Consecutive Stays
Extracted source text · arXiv 2506.00909
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%% Author template for Management Science (mnsc) for articles with no e-companion (EC)
%% Mirko Janc, Ph.D., INFORMS, mirko.janc@informs.org
%% ver. 0.95, December 2010
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% \documentclass[mnsc]{informs3}
\documentclass[mnsc, nonblindrev]{informs3} % current default for manuscript submission
\OneAndAHalfSpacedXI
% \OneAndAHalfSpacedXII % Current default line spacing
%%\DoubleSpacedXII
%%\DoubleSpacedXI
% If hyperref is used, dvi-to-ps driver of choice must be declared as
% an additional option to the \documentclass. For example
%\documentclass[dvips,mnsc]{informs3} % if dvips is used
%\documentclass[dvipsone,mnsc]{informs3} % if dvipsone is used, etc.
% Private macros here (check that there is no clash with the style)
% Natbib setup for author-year style
\usepackage{natbib}
\bibpunct[, ]{(}{)}{,}{a}{}{,}%
\def\bibfont{\small}%
\def\bibsep{\smallskipamount}%
\def\bibhang{24pt}%
\def\newblock{\ }%
\def\BIBand{and}%
%% Setup of theorem styles. Outcomment only one.
%% Preferred default is the first option.
\TheoremsNumberedThrough % Preferred (Theorem 1, Lemma 1, Theorem 2)
%\TheoremsNumberedByChapter % (Theorem 1.1, Lema 1.1, Theorem 1.2)
\ECRepeatTheorems
%% Setup of the equation numbering system. Outcomment only one.
%% Preferred default is the first option.
\EquationsNumberedThrough % Default: (1), (2), ...
%\EquationsNumberedBySection % (1.1), (1.2), ...
% For new submissions, leave this number blank.
% For revisions, input the manuscript number assigned by the on-line
% system along with a suffix ".Rx" where x is the revision number.
%\MANUSCRIPTNO{MS-0001-1922.65}
%\documentclass{article}
%\usepackage{xurl}
%\usepackage[hidelinks]{hyperref}
\usepackage{amsmath,amssymb,amsfonts}
\usepackage{mathtools}
%\usepackage{algorithmic}
\usepackage[noend]{algorithmic}
\usepackage{algorithm}
% \usepackage{algpseudocode}
% \usepackage{algcompatible}
\renewcommand{\algorithmiccomment}[1]{\hfill $\triangleright$ #1}
% \usepackage{graphicx}
%\usepackage{subfigure}
\usepackage{textcomp}
\usepackage{xcolor}
\usepackage{graphicx}
% \usepackage{float}
%\usepackage{algorithm}
\usepackage{booktabs}
\usepackage{multirow}
\usepackage{makecell}
\usepackage{tabularx}
%\usepackage{hyperref}
\usepackage{latexsym}
% \usepackage{array}
\usepackage{subcaption}
\def\BibTeX{{\rm B\kern-.05em{\sc i\kern-.025em b}\kern-.08em
T\kern-.1667em\lower.7ex\hbox{E}\kern-.125emX}}
\newcommand{\tabincell}[2]{\begin{tabular}{@{}#1@{}}#2\end{tabular}}
\newlength\myindent
\setlength\myindent{2em}
\newcommand\bindent{%
\begingroup
\setlength{\itemindent}{\myindent}
\addtolength{\algorithmicindent}{\myindent}
}
\newcommand\eindent{\endgroup}
\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
\usepackage{lmodern}
\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc} % allow utf-8 input
\usepackage[T1]{fontenc} % use 8-bit T1 fonts
\definecolor{DarkBlue}{rgb}{0,0.08,0.45}
\usepackage[backref = false, bookmarks, colorlinks = true, plainpages = false, citecolor = DarkBlue , urlcolor = DarkBlue, filecolor = DarkBlue, linkcolor = DarkBlue]{hyperref} % hyperlinks
\usepackage{url} % simple URL typesetting
\usepackage{booktabs} % professional-quality tables
\usepackage{amsfonts} % blackboard math symbols
\usepackage{nicefrac} % compact symbols for 1/2, etc.
\usepackage{microtype} % microtypography
%\usepackage{subfigure}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\usepackage{rotating}
\usepackage{mathrsfs}
\usepackage{array,multirow}
% \usepackage{amsbsy}
\usepackage[justification=centering]{caption}
% \usepackage{subcaption}
\usepackage{bbm}
% \usepackage{setspace}
% \usepackage{algpseudocode}
% \usepackage{tablefootnote}
\usepackage{makecell}
\renewcommand\theadfont{}
\usepackage{tabularx}
\usepackage{mathtools}
\DeclarePairedDelimiterX{\norm}[1]{\lVert}{\rVert}{#1}
\DeclarePairedDelimiter\ceil{\lceil}{\rceil}
\DeclarePairedDelimiter\floor{\lfloor}{\rfloor}
\usepackage{circuitikz}
% \usepackage{amsthm}
% \theoremstyle{definition}
% \newtheorem{definition}{Definition}
%
\newtheorem{property}{Property}
%\newtheorem{problem}{Problem}
%\newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}
%\newtheorem{lemma}{Lemma}
%\newtheorem{proposition}{Proposition}
%\newtheorem{prop}{Proposition}
%\newtheorem{example}{Example}
%\newtheorem{remark}{Remark}
%\newtheorem{claim}{Claim}
%\newtheorem{co}{caption}
% \newenvironment{proof}{{\noindent\it Proof}\quad}{\hfill $\square$\par}
\renewcommand{\algorithmicrequire}{\textbf{Input:}}
\renewcommand{\algorithmicensure}{\textbf{Output:}}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%% The following definitions are to extend the LaTeX algorithmic
%% package with SWITCH statements and one-line structures.
%% The extension is by
%% Prof. Farn Wang
%% Dept. of Electrical Engineering,
%% National Taiwan University.
%%
\newcommand{\SWITCH}[1]{\STATE \textbf{switch} (#1)}
\newcommand{\ENDSWITCH}{\STATE \textbf{end switch}}
\newcommand{\CASE}[1]{\STATE \textbf{case} #1\textbf{:} \begin{ALC@g}}
\newcommand{\ENDCASE}{\end{ALC@g}}
\newcommand{\CASELINE}[1]{\STATE \textbf{case} #1\textbf{:} }
\newcommand{\DEFAULT}{\STATE \textbf{default:} \begin{ALC@g}}
\newcommand{\ENDDEFAULT}{\end{ALC@g}}
\newcommand{\DEFAULTLINE}[1]{\STATE \textbf{default:} }
%%
%% End of the LaTeX algorithmic package extension.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\begin{document}
\TITLE{\Large{Constant-Factor Algorithms \\for Revenue Management with Consecutive Stays}}
\ARTICLEAUTHORS{
\AUTHOR{Ming Hu}
\AFF{Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto, \EMAIL{ming.hu@rotman.utoronto.ca}}
\AUTHOR{Tongwen Wu}
\AFF{Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto, \EMAIL{tw.wu@rotman.utoronto.ca}}
}
\ABSTRACT{
We study network revenue management problems motivated by applications such as railway ticket sales and hotel room bookings. Request types that require a resource for consecutive stays sequentially arrive with known arrival probabilities. We investigate two scenarios: the reject-or-accept scenario, where the request can be fulfilled by any available resource, and the choice-based scenario, which generalizes the former by incorporating customer preferences through basic attraction models. We develop constant-factor approximation algorithms: $1-1/e$ for the reject-or-accept scenario and $0.125$ for the choice-based scenario.
%Methodologically, (i) we introduce a decomposable property for representing resource availability, which we leverage within the fluid relaxation; (ii) we utilize a proposal-based algorithm along with virtual resource statuses to ensure probabilistic independence across resources; and (iii) in the choice-based scenario, we propose a randomized function to couple customer choices with virtual resource statuses.
}
% \begin{ABSTRACT}
% Your abstract.
% \end{ABSTRACT}
\maketitle
\vspace{-2em}
\section{Introduction}
The network revenue management (NRM) problem is a classic resource allocation challenge in which a decision-maker must manage limited resources while deciding over time whether and how to fulfill sequentially arriving requests, each of which may require multiple resources. NRM has been widely applied in various settings, including the travel and hospitality industries \citep{gallego2019revenue}.
In this work, we study a class of NRM problems where resources are arranged in a grid network and each request requires access to a sequence of consecutive resources. To motivate our problem, we present two illustrative scenarios.
%The network revenue management (NRM) problem is a typical resource allocation problem where the decision-maker has finite resources and needs to decide whether to and how to fulfill each sequentially arriving request, which can demand multiple resources. The NRM has found many applications in diverse areas such as the travel and hospitality industries \citep{gallego2019revenue}.
%In this work, we consider the NRM problems with a grid network of resources, where requests require consecutive resources. We provide two motivating scenarios to illustrate this.
First, in the high-speed railway industry, which has experienced rapid global expansion \citep{globenewswire2025railroads}, seat assignment plays a critical role in maximizing profits \citep{zhu2023assign}.
Consider, for example, a train route running from Station A to Station F, with intermediate stops at Stations B, C, D, and E. The train has 100 numbered seats, and each passenger requests a seat for either the full route or a segment of it (see Figure~\ref{fig:seat}). The resource allocation in this context can be visualized as a Gantt chart, where each row represents a seat and each column corresponds to a leg of the journey. For every online booking request, the decision-maker must determine not only whether to accept the request but also which seat to assign, ensuring that no seat is allocated to overlapping itineraries on the same leg.
% First, in the high-speed railway industry, which has witnessed rapid global expansion \citep{globenewswire2025railroads}, seat assignment plays an important role in boosting profits \citep{zhu2023assign}.
% For instance, consider a train route traveling from Station A to Station F, with intermediate stops at Stations B, C, D, and E. The train has 100 numbered seats, and each passenger demands a seat for a full or sub-route (see Figure~\ref{fig:seat}). The resource allocation in this scenario can be viewed as a Gantt chart, with each row corresponding to a seat, and each column representing a leg of the journey. For each online booking request, the decision-maker needs not only to decide whether to sell a ticket, but also which seat to assign, ensuring that no seats in a leg are assigned to multiple itineraries.
Second, the scenario described above can be extended to revenue management under customer choice \citep{rusmevichientong2023revenue}. This applies to platforms such as Airbnb and boutique hotels, where resources such as rooms or houses are uniquely defined by features like decor, view, and price (see Figure~\ref{fig:room}). Customers arrive with booking requests for specific future time intervals, and resources are available only during the remaining time slots after blocking those reserved by previous customers. A key operational challenge in this setting is that the decision-maker must present an assortment of available resources from which the customer selects based on a specified choice model. Effectively managing these bookings requires offering personalized assortments that strategically balance immediate revenue potential with future resource availability.
% Second, the scenario above can be extended to revenue management under customer choice \citep{rusmevichientong2023revenue}. This applies to platforms like Airbnb and boutique hotels, where resources, such as rooms or houses, are uniquely characterized by features like decor, view, and price. Customers arrive with booking requests for specific time intervals in the future, and the resources availability status again follows a grid structure (see Figure~\ref{fig:room}). An additional operational challenge in this scenario is that the decision-maker must offer an assortment of available resources (e.g., rooms or houses), from which the customer can choose according to a choice model. Effectively managing these bookings requires offering personalized assortments that balance current revenue opportunities with future availability.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\caption{Illustrative Examples}
\begin{subfigure}{.5\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.7\linewidth]{seating.png}
\caption{Seat Availability Status}
\label{fig:seat}
\end{subfigure}%
\begin{subfigure}{.5\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.7\linewidth]{hotel.png}
\caption{Hotel Room Reservation Status}
\label{fig:room}
\end{subfigure}
{\footnotesize \textit{Note.} For both subfigures, blank slots indicate availability, whereas colorful slots represent reservations made by two distinct customers, respectively.}
\label{fig:example}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection*{Our Model.}
In this paper, we study a class of network revenue management problems involving $M$ resources, each with $N$ initially available slots, which may represent time-based capacities such as legs or days. The system operates over a finite planning horizon of $T$ periods, during which at most one customer request may arrive per period. Each request is characterized by a known arrival probability and a demand for a specific interval of slots.
We consider two scenarios that differ in how allocation decisions are made: the \textit{accept-or-reject scenario} and the \textit{choice-based scenario}. In the accept-or-reject scenario, akin to seat assignment in railway ticketing, the decision-maker must not only decide whether to accept a request at a given price but also assign an appropriate interval of available slots. In the choice-based scenario, the problem becomes more complex, as the customer choice is modeled using a basic attraction model \citep{gallego2015general}. In this case, the decision-maker must offer an assortment of available resources at given prices, from which a customer selects a resource probabilistically, making the allocation decision more intricate than in the accept-or-reject setting. The objective in both scenarios is to design a policy that maximizes the total expected revenue over the planning horizon.
% \subsubsection*{Our Model.}
% In this paper, we investigate network revenue management problems involving \(M\) resources, each with \(N\) initially available slots, which can represent legs or days. The finite planning horizon unfolds over \(T\) periods, with at most one request arriving in each period, characterized by a known arrival probability and a demand for a specific interval of slots. We examine two scenarios distinguished by the allocation decision: the accept-or-reject scenario and the choice-based scenario. In the accept-or-reject scenario, similar to seat assignment for railway tickets, the decision involves allocating an available interval of slots to a customer, in addition to deciding whether to accept the request. In contrast, the choice-based scenario introduces additional complexity, as the customer’s random choice is governed by a basic attraction model \citep{gallego2015general}. Here, the decision-maker must determine an assortment of available resources, which involves a more intricate decision process than simply choosing which resource to allocate.
% The goal is to find a policy that maximizes the total expected revenue over the planning horizon.
The most closely related papers to ours are those of \cite{zhu2023assign}, \cite{rusmevichientong2023revenue}, and \cite{simchi2025greedy}. \cite{zhu2023assign} study the accept-or-reject scenario, comparing the performance of their proposed policy to an offline optimum, i.e., a benchmark that assumes full knowledge of the demand realization over the entire planning horizon. However, they establish only asymptotic performance guarantees for their policy.
\cite{rusmevichientong2023revenue} examine the choice-based scenario under a general choice model. They propose a polynomial-time algorithm and evaluate it against the online optimum, a benchmark that makes decisions without knowing future demand realizations and is therefore weaker than the offline optimum. Their analysis yields an approximation ratio of only $\Omega(1/L)$, where $L$ denotes the maximum length of requested intervals.
More recently, \cite{simchi2025greedy} make significant progress by establishing a competitive ratio of $\Omega(1/\log L)$ for the problems studied in both \cite{zhu2023assign} and \cite{rusmevichientong2023revenue}. Notably, they consider a more challenging adversarial setting in which even the arrival distributions are unknown, yet still derive stronger performance guarantees relative to the offline optimum.
But a key open question remains: Can we design a policy with a constant-factor performance guarantee independent of the parameter $L$, even if measured only against the weaker online optimum?
% The works most closely related to ours are \citealt{zhu2023assign}, \cite{rusmevichientong2023revenue}, and \cite{simchi2025greedy}. \cite{zhu2023assign} consider the accept-or-reject scenario.
% They compare the performance of the policy with a offline optimum where the decision-maker has full information on the demand realization for the entire
% time horizon while only demonstrating the asymptotic performance of their policy.
% \cite{rusmevichientong2023revenue} consider the choice-based scenario under a general choice model. They propose a polynomial-time algorithm and evaluate its performance by comparing it with the online optimum, which is a weaker benchmark than the offline optimum since it does not know future demand realizations. However, they can only establish an approximation ratio of $\Omega(1/L)$, where $L$ is the largest length of requested intervals.
% A recent progress from \cite{simchi2025greedy} derives a competitive ratio of $\Omega(1/\log L)$ for the problems in \cite{zhu2023assign} and \cite{rusmevichientong2023revenue}.
% That is, they consider an adversarial setting where even the distributions of arrivals are unknown, but they are able to derive better performance guarantees when compared to the offline optimum.
% A central question that remains open is whether we can obtain a constant-factor performance guarantee, independent of the parameter $L$, even when compared to the weaker benchmark, the online optimum.
\subsubsection*{Our Contributions.}
We address the aforementioned question by developing constant-factor approximation algorithms for both the accept-or-reject and choice-based scenarios. Specifically, we propose a $(1 - 1/e)$-approximation policy for the accept-or-reject setting and a $0.125$-approximation policy for the more general choice-based setting, which subsumes the former as a special case (see Lemma~\ref{lemma:special_case}). Our key technical contributions, along with the specific challenges they address, are summarized as follows.
% \subsubsection*{Our Contributions.}
% We resolve this question by proposing constant-factor approximation algorithms for both scenarios. Overall, we provide a $(1-1/e)$-approximation policy for the accept-or-reject scenario and $0.125$-approximation policy for the choice-based scenario, which indeed includes the former scenario as a special case (as shown in Lemma~\ref{lemma:special_case}). We list our technical contributions and outline how they circumvent particular difficulties as follows.
\paragraph{Decomposable property.}
A central challenge in network revenue management is the difficulty introduced by dependencies on the parameter $L$, which represents the maximum length of requested slot intervals. This difficulty stems from the need to simultaneously track the availability of up to $L$ slots, particularly when resource requirements have arbitrary structures, as revealed in prior work \citep{ma2024online}. In contrast, our setting assumes that requested slots are consecutive, enabling us to exploit this structural feature for a more compact representation of resource availability.
Specifically, we represent the state of each resource using the notion of maximal sequences of available slots. Importantly, the number of such sequences is bounded by $O(N^2)$, where $N$ is the initial number of slots per resource. Although a resource's availability status may initially involve multiple maximal sequences, we uncover an underlying decomposable property that substantially simplifies the design of approximation algorithms.
To illustrate this insight, we begin with a warm-up case in Section~\ref{sec:warm_up}, focusing on a single-resource accept-or-reject scenario. We demonstrate that this simpler setting admits an optimal polynomial-time policy via dynamic programming, where states are defined in terms of maximal sequences. Building on this foundation, we introduce variables corresponding to maximal sequences in our fluid relaxation framework for the general case.
% \paragraph{Decomposable property.}
% The traditional difficulty, involving dependence on the parameter $L$, arises from the need to track the availability of up to $L$ slots simultaneously, which significantly complicates algorithm design. Indeed, this complexity is prevalent when resource requirements exhibit an arbitrary structure in network revenue management problems \citep{ma2024online}. However, in our case, since the requested slots are consecutive, we can leverage this specific structure to achieve a more succinct representation of the resource availability. In particular, we utilize the notion of maximal sequences of available slots to represent the state of each resource, and the number of such sequences is bounded by $O(N^2)$. Although fully representing the availability status of a resource may initially require multiple maximal sequences, we identify an underlying decomposable property that significantly facilitates algorithm design. To illustrate this insight, we first consider a warm-up case involving only a single resource under the accept-or-reject scenario in Section~\ref{sec:warm_up}. We show that this simpler scenario admits an optimal polynomial-time policy through dynamic programming, where the states are maximal sequences. Furthermore, inspired by this dynamic programming approach, we associate variables with maximal sequences in our fluid relaxation when dealing with general scenarios.
\paragraph{Proposal-based algorithm.}
We evaluate our policies by benchmarking them against the online optimum, which can be computed via dynamic programming. However, this approach typically incurs exponential state complexity when multiple resources are involved. Our algorithm for the accept-or-reject scenario draws inspiration from the proposal-based algorithmic framework introduced by \cite{braverman2022max,braverman2025new} in the context of online stochastic matching. In their setting, an optimal solution to a fluid relaxation of the online optimum is first computed. Each unmatched offline vertex then independently submits a proposal to match with an arriving vertex, using probabilities derived from the fluid solution, and one proposal is ultimately selected for execution.
To adapt this framework to our setting, we generalize the binary matched/unmatched status of vertices to a richer representation based on the availability of maximal sequences for each resource. Furthermore, we introduce the concept of virtual resource status, which allows each resource to independently submit proposals based on its local availability state. This design preserves probabilistic independence across resources and facilitates scalable algorithmic implementation.
% \paragraph{Proposal-based algorithm.}
% We evaluate policies by comparing them against the online optimum, which can be computed via dynamic programming but typically requires an exponential number of states when multiple resources are involved. Our algorithm for the accept-or-reject scenario is inspired by the emerging proposal-based algorithm framework developed by \cite{braverman2022max,braverman2025new} for online stochastic matching. Specifically, their approach computes an optimal solution to a fluid relaxation of the online optimum, then guides each unmatched offline vertex to independently submit a proposal to match with an arriving vertex based on probabilities derived from this solution. Finally, they select one match from the set of proposals. To adapt their approach, we generalize the binary matched/unmatched status of vertices to track the availability status via maximal sequences for each resource. We further introduce the notion of virtual resource status, enabling each resource to independently submit proposals, thereby preserving probabilistic independence across resources.
\paragraph{Additional techniques for the choice-based scenario.}
Extending the proposal-based algorithm to the choice-based scenario introduces a unique challenge: the decision-maker can only influence the customer's behavior indirectly, through the assortment of resources offered. To the best of our knowledge, this work is the first to integrate choice models within the proposal-based algorithmic framework.
Our approach incorporates several new techniques. First, drawing inspiration from the sales-based linear program (SBLP) introduced by \citet{gallego2015general}, we formulate a polynomial-sized fluid relaxation that approximates the online optimum. Second, we recognize that, unlike in the accept-or-reject scenario, probabilistic independence across resources does not naturally hold here, as a customer's selection is influenced by the entire assortment. To address this, we construct assortments by independently including each proposed resource with a scaled-down probability, and introduce a technical mechanism---a randomized coupling function that links the customer's choice to a randomly generated subset of resources---designed to restore probabilistic independence. We show that this conservative sampling strategy approximately preserves the ex-ante choice probability of each resource, thereby maintaining alignment with the fluid solution and enabling theoretical performance guarantees.
% \paragraph{Additional techniques for the choice-based scenario.}
% Extending the proposal-based algorithm to the choice-based scenario presents a unique challenge: one can only influence the customer's decision through the assortment offered. To the best of our knowledge, we are the first to incorporate choice models into this algorithmic framework. First, inspired by the sales-based linear program (SBLP) proposed by \citep{gallego2015general}, we develop a polynomial-sized fluid relaxation to approximate the online optimum. Second, we observe that probabilistic independence across resources need not hold, as a customer's decision to choose a specific resource depends on the entire assortment. To address this, we introduce a technical component—a randomized function that couples the customer’s choice with a randomly generated set of resources—designed to preserve probabilistic independence. Third, we construct assortments by including each proposed resource independently with a fixed probability, and we show that this conservative sampling approach approximately preserves the ex-ante choice probability for each resource.
\subsubsection*{Literature Review.}
We review two streams of literature to position our work.
\paragraph{Network revenue management.}
The network revenue management (NRM) problem takes its name from the underlying network structure of resources, where fulfilling a single request typically involves allocating multiple resources simultaneously \citep{gallego1997multiproduct}. While demand distributions are typically assumed to be known in advance, computing an optimal policy via dynamic programming is often computationally intractable due to the curse of dimensionality.
Over the past two decades, a considerable amount of research has focused on developing approximate dynamic programming methods to overcome this challenge \citep{bertsimas2003revenue, adelman2007dynamic, topaloglu2009using, zhang2009approximate}. Another major line of work has pursued asymptotically optimal policies \citep{reiman2008asymptotically, jasin2012re, jasin2013analysis, bumpensanti2020re}. More recently, worst-case analysis has received increasing attention, with studies evaluating policies relative to either the optimal dynamic solution \citep{ma2020approximation, rusmevichientong2023revenue} or the offline optimum with full knowledge of future demand \citep{baek2022bifurcating, ma2024online}. These papers typically establish performance guarantees that scale as $O(1/L)$, where $L$ denotes the maximum number of resources required per request.
A notable exception is \cite{simchi2025greedy}, which achieves improved performance bounds under a specific structure of requested resources. In contrast, our work is the first to establish constant-factor approximation guarantees under such a structure, representing an advancement in worst-case analysis for NRM.
% \paragraph{Network revenue management.}
% The NRM problem derives its name from the network structure of its resources, where fulfilling a single request typically requires allocating multiple resources simultaneously \citep{gallego1997multiproduct}. Typically, the demand distributions are usually known in advance; however, computing an optimal policy via dynamic programming is often computationally infeasible due to the curse of dimensionality. Over the past two decades, extensive studies have focused on developing approximate dynamic programming approaches \citep{bertsimas2003revenue, adelman2007dynamic, topaloglu2009using, zhang2009approximate}. Another significant research direction has explored resolving techniques to achieve asymptotic optimality \citep{reiman2008asymptotically, jasin2012re, jasin2013analysis, bumpensanti2020re}. More recently, worst-case analysis has gained attention, with studies comparing policy performance against either the optimal policy \citep{ma2020approximation, rusmevichientong2023revenue} or the offline optimum that fully knows future demand realizations \citep{baek2022bifurcating, ma2024online}. These works generally achieve ratios that scale as \(O(1/L)\), where \(L\) denotes the maximum number of resources required per request. An exception is \cite{simchi2025greedy}, which demonstrates improved performance guarantees when the requested resources exhibit a special structure. In contrast, we are the first to establish constant-factor approximation ratios under such a special structure.
\paragraph{Online bipartite matching.}
Online bipartite matching has long been a foundational problem in the study of online algorithms. Under adversarial arrivals, one of the most influential results is due to \cite{karp1990optimal}, who established a seminal competitive ratio of $1 - 1/e$. For an overview of the extensive literature on related variants, we refer readers to the survey by \cite{mehta2013online}.
In settings where arrivals follow known distributions, a prominent research direction focuses on prophet inequalities by benchmarking online algorithms against the offline optimum. This line of work has gained considerable attention in Bayesian selection and matching problems; see the comprehensive review by \citet{ma2024randomized}. More recently, there has been growing interest in benchmarking against the online optimum. This direction was initiated by the breakthrough of \cite{papadimitriou2021online}, with subsequent advances by \cite{braverman2022max}, \cite{naor2025online}, and \cite{braverman2025new}. Parallel developments have also emerged in continuous-time models \citep{aouad2020dynamic, kessel2022stationary, amanihamedani2024improved}.
The currently prevalent approach is the proposal-based algorithm framework introduced by \cite{braverman2025new}, which employs pivot sampling to generate proposals. In contrast, our method adopts independent sampling and extends this framework to accommodate more complex resource availability structures. Moreover, we incorporate customer choice models, thereby broadening the applicability of the proposal-based approach to settings of assortment optimization.
% \paragraph{Online bipartite matching.}
% Online bipartite matching has been a central focus in developing online algorithms. Under adversarial arrivals, perhaps the most influential result is by \cite{karp1990optimal}, who provide a seminal competitive ratio of \(1-1/e\). For an overview of related variants, we refer readers to the survey by \cite{mehta2013online}. When arrivals follow known distributions, a prominent area of study involves prophet inequalities, which benchmark online algorithms against the offline optimum and have flourished in online Bayesian selection and matching scenarios (see review by \citealt{ma2024randomized}). Recently, there has been increasing interest in benchmarking against the online optimum, initiated by a breakthrough from \cite{papadimitriou2021online}, with subsequent improvements by \cite{braverman2022max}, \cite{naor2025online}, and \cite{braverman2025new}. Similar advances have also occurred in continuous-time settings (\citealt{aouad2020dynamic, kessel2022stationary, amanihamedani2024improved}).
% The state-of-the-art technique is the proposal-based algorithm framework \citep{braverman2025new}, though these proposals rely on pivot sampling rather than the independent sampling approach used in our method.
% Our work extends this framework to accommodate more complex resource availability structures and incorporates customer choice models.
\section{Model}
\label{sec:model}
We consider a generic resource allocation problem involving $M$ heterogeneous resources, denoted by $\mathcal{M} \triangleq \{1, \dots, M\}$. For any integers $i$ and $j$, we use the notation $[i, j]$ to represent the set $\{i, i+1, \dots, j\}$ if $i \le j$, and $\emptyset$ otherwise. Each resource is initially available during the set of time slots $\mathcal{N} \triangleq [1, N]$.
This notation accommodates a variety of applications. For example, in the context of railway ticket sales, the resources correspond to seats, and the time slots correspond to legs between consecutive stations. In hotel room bookings, the resources represent rooms or houses, and the time slots correspond to days.
We consider a finite planning horizon consisting of $T$ discrete time periods, where each period is sufficiently short to ensure at most one request arrives. We analyze two distinct scenarios, differentiated by the structure of the requests, as described below.
% We consider a generic resource allocation problem, with $M$ (heterogeneous) resources denoted by $\mathcal{M} \triangleq \{1, \dots, M \}$. We use $[i,j]$ to denote the set of $\{i, i+1, \dots, j-1, j \}$ if $i \le j$ and $\emptyset$ otherwise.
% Each resource is initially available during the time slots $\mathcal{N} \triangleq [1, N]$. To illustrate this notation, in the problem of assigning seats to customers for the train, the resources correspond to seats, and the time slots correspond to legs between stations. In the problem of hotel room booking, resources correspond to rooms, and time slots correspond to days.
% We consider a finite planning horizon that unfolds over $T$ periods. Each time period is sufficiently small to ensure that there is at most one request per period. We consider two scenarios, differentiated by the type of requests, as follows.
% Consider a seating planning problem for a show.
% There are $M$ rows of seats, with $N$ seats in each row. The seats of any row are positioned sequentially from $1$ to $N$. There are $T$ time periods.
\subsection{Reject-or-Accept Scenario}
We begin with a scenario in which the decision-maker must respond to each incoming request by either rejecting it or accepting it along with an allocation of available time slots.
Formally, in each period $t \in \mathcal{T} \triangleq \{1, \dots, T\}$, the request is characterized by a type $\theta_t = (p_t, l_t, r_t, \{w_{tj} \mid j \in \mathcal{M} \})$, where the request arrives independently with probability $p_t$, it demands consecutive time slots $[l_t, r_t] \subseteq \mathcal{N}$, and for each resource $j \in \mathcal{M}$, assigning the interval $[l_t, r_t]$ of resource $j$ yields a reward of $w_{tj}$.
If the request arrives in period $t$, the decision-maker may choose to assign the requested time interval $[l_t, r_t]$ on any available resource $j \in \mathcal{M}$, thereby earning revenue $w_{tj}$. Alternatively, the request may be rejected, in which case no revenue or cost is accrued.
% \subsection{Reject-or-Accept Scenario}
% We first consider a scenario in which the decision-maker responds to each request by either rejecting it or accepting it with an allocation of available time slots.
% Formally speaking, in period $t \in \mathcal{T} \triangleq \{1,\dots,T \}$, the prior information about the request is a type $\theta_t=(p_t, l_t, r_t, \{ w_{tj} | j \in \mathcal{M}\})$, meaning that this request will arrive independently with a probability $p_t$ and demand consecutive time slots $[l_t, r_t]$ from any resource. Specifically, for the arrived request in period $t$, we can allocate the available time slots $[l_t, r_t]$ of any resource $j \in \mathcal{M}$ to the request, generating a revenue of $w_{tj}$. Alternatively, we may reject the request with no cost or revenue.
\begin{remark}
\label{remark:random_interval}
Compared to \citet{zhu2023assign}, their model introduces additional complexity by allowing requested intervals \([l_t,r_t]\) to be random and follow a known distribution. When restricting their model to fixing an interval for each period, their problem of assigning seats to customers for selling train tickets becomes a special case of our scenario: the resources \(\mathcal{M}\) correspond to seats, and each time slot represents a travel leg from one station to the next. In this context, \(w_{tj}\) denotes the ticket price from the departure station of leg \(l_t\) to the arrival station of leg \(r_t\).
We emphasize that restricting our model to fixing an interval within each period does not simplify the core difficulty since the requested intervals still arrive randomly in our setting. In fact, our model can approximate each of their periods by using multiple consecutive periods, each capturing a potential requested interval within the original period. Moreover, we believe that our approach can be extended to accommodate random intervals within each period, although this would complicate the algorithm design and analysis. Such extensions are generally tractable, as demonstrated in \cite{papadimitriou2021online, braverman2022max, braverman2025new}. While a formal analysis remains to be done, we are inclined to believe that the approximation ratio would likely remain unchanged.
\end{remark}
An instance of this scenario is denoted by $\mathcal{I} \triangleq \{\mathcal{M}, \mathcal{N}, \{ \theta_t \}_{t \in \mathcal{T}} \}$, and the problem for this instance can be formulated as follows:
\begin{align}
\label{eq:problem}
\overline{V}(\mathcal{I}) \triangleq \max_{\pi \in \Pi(\mathcal{I}) } V^{\pi}(\mathcal{I}),
\end{align}
where $\Pi(\mathcal{I})$ denotes the set of feasible policies for instance $\mathcal{I}$, $V^{\pi}(\mathcal{I})$ is the total expected revenue over the planning horizon under policy $\pi$, and $\overline{V}(\mathcal{I})$ represents the maximum achievable expected revenue across all feasible policies.
A policy is deemed feasible if its decisions rely solely on prior information and the observed history up to the current period. Our objective is to design a polynomial-time policy that approximately maximizes the expected total revenue.
We evaluate the quality of a policy by comparing it to the optimal policy, as formalized below:
\begin{definition}[Approximation Ratio]
A policy $\pi$ is said to be an $\alpha$-approximation if, for any instance $\mathcal{I}$, it runs in polynomial time and satisfies
$ V^\pi(\mathcal{I}) \ge \alpha \cdot \overline{V}(\mathcal{I}).
$
\end{definition}
% An instance of this scenario is denoted by $\mathcal{I} \triangleq \{\mathcal{M}, \mathcal{N}, \{ \theta_t\}_{t \in \mathcal{T}} \}$ and the problem for this instance can be formulated as follows:
% \begin{align}
% \label{eq:problem}
% \overline{V}(\mathcal{I}) \triangleq \max_{\pi \in \Pi(\mathcal{I}) } V^{\pi}(\mathcal{I}),
% \end{align}
% where $\Pi(\mathcal{I})$ is the set of feasible policies for instance $\mathcal{I}$, $V^{\pi}(\mathcal{I})$ is the total expected revenue throughout the horizon give the policy $\pi$, and $\overline{V}(\mathcal{I})$ is the maximum of $V^\pi(\mathcal{I})$ over all polices $\pi \in \Pi(\mathcal{I})$. Note that a policy is feasible if its decision is solely based on history and prior information. Thus, this scenario is essentially a dynamic programming problem, and we aim to design a polynomial-time policy that maximizes the total expected revenue.
% We evaluate a policy by comparing it with the optimal (potentially non-polynomial-time) policy, as follows:
% \begin{definition}[Approximation Ratio]
% A policy $\pi$ is said to be an $\alpha$-approximation if, for any instance $\mathcal{I}$, it runs in polynomial time and satisfies
% \(
% \frac{V^\pi(\mathcal{I})}{\overline{V}(\mathcal{I})} \ge \alpha.
% \)
% \end{definition}
\subsection{Choice-Based Scenario}
We further generalize the previous scenario by considering settings in which the decision-maker responds to each customer's arrival by offering an assortment of available resources, where the customer's selection is governed by a discrete choice model.
We assume that customer behavior follows the basic attraction model introduced by \cite{luce1959individual}, which subsumes the widely used multinomial logit (MNL) model. Specifically, in each period $t \in \mathcal{T}$, the request is characterized by a type $\theta_t = (p_t, l_t, r_t, \{w_{tj} \mid j \in \mathcal{M}\}, \{v_{tj} \mid j \in \mathcal{M}^+\})$, where $\mathcal{M}^+ \triangleq \mathcal{M} \cup \{0\}$ and index 0 represents the outside option.
The parameters $p_t,l_t,r_t,\{w_{tj}|j \in \mathcal{M}\}$ are defined as in the previous scenario.
The parameter $v_{tj} \ge 0$ denotes the attractiveness of resource $j \in \mathcal{M}$ to customer $t$, and $v_{t0} \ge 0$ denotes the attractiveness of the outside option.
If an assortment $\mathcal{S} \subseteq \mathcal{M}$ of available resources is offered to customer $t$, she chooses option $j \in \mathcal{S}^+$ with probability proportional to its attractiveness, that is, with probability $\frac{v_{tj}}{\sum_{k \in \mathcal{S}^+} v_{tk}}$. To ensure well-defined choice probabilities, we assume that resources with zero attractiveness are never included in the assortment.
The decision-maker’s objective is to maximize the total expected revenue over the planning horizon by determining, in each period, which assortment of available resources to offer.
% We further generalize the previous scenario by considering cases in which the decision-maker responds to each customer's request by offering an assortment of available resources, with the customers' choices governed by discrete choice models.
% Here, we assume the customer's choice behavior follows a basic attraction model developed by \cite{luce1959individual}, which includes the widely used multinomial logit models.
% In particular, in period $t \in \mathcal{T}$, prior information is denoted by $\theta_t=(p_t, l_t, r_t, \{w_{tj}| j \in \mathcal{M} \}, \{v_{tj} | j \in \mathcal{M}^+ \})$ (where we use $S^+$ to denote $S \cup \{ 0 \}$ for any set $S$, and $0$ refers to the outside option). Here, $p_t$ represents the arrival probability of customer $t$, and $[l_t, r_t]$ denotes the interval of time slots requested by the customer. $w_{tj}$ indicates the revenue generated if customer $t$ chooses resource $j \in \mathcal{M}$.
% If customer $t$ is offered an assortment $\mathcal{S} \subseteq \mathcal{M}$ of available resources, she will choose $j \in \mathcal{S}^+$ with probability $\frac{v_{tj}}{ \sum_{k \in \mathcal{S}^+}v_{tk}}$, where $v_{tj} \ge 0$ represents the attractiveness of resource $j \in \mathcal{M}$ to customer $t$, and $v_{t0} \ge 0$ is the attractiveness of the outside option to customer $t$. Since attractiveness can be zero, the policy will avoid offering products of zero attractiveness to prevent ill-defined situations.
% The decision-maker aims to maximize the total expected revenue by determining which assortment of available resources to offer customers in each period.
\begin{remark}
We illustrate the setting with the boutique hotel room booking example introduced in \cite{rusmevichientong2023revenue}. In this case, a customer randomly arrives in each period with an exogenously specified itinerary over a time interval. Upon receiving the request, the decision-maker offers an assortment of available rooms, from which the customer selects according to a choice model. Like ours, \cite{rusmevichientong2023revenue} assume that the customers' choice models are known; in their empirical studies, they use multinomial logit models, although their methodology applies more broadly to general choice models. They also allow the requested intervals to be random. However, as discussed in Remark~\ref{remark:random_interval}, our fixed-interval assumption does not simplify the core difficulty.
\end{remark}
% \begin{remark}
% We use an illustrative example of the boutique hotel room booking problem introduced in \cite{rusmevichientong2023revenue}. In this case, a customer randomly arrives with an exogenous itinerary over a time interval in each period. After receiving the request, the decision-maker can offer the customer an assortment of available rooms, and the customer will then choose among the options according to a choice model. \cite{rusmevichientong2023revenue} also assume the customers' choice models are known, and they use multinomial logit models in their empirical experiments though their approach applies to general choice models.
% \end{remark}
For simplicity, we continue to use $\mathcal{I}$ to denote an instance and formulate the problem as in \eqref{eq:problem}. Since attractiveness can be zero, the previous scenario is a special case of the choice-based setting, as shown below (with the proof available in Appendix~\ref{sec:proof_special_case}):
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:special_case}
Given an $\alpha$-approximation policy for the choice-based scenario, one can construct an $\alpha$-approximation policy for the reject-or-accept scenario.
\end{lemma}
% For simplicity, we still use $\mathcal{I}$ to denote an instance of this scenario and formulate the problem as in \eqref{eq:problem}. As attractiveness can be zero, we show that the reject-or-accept scenario is indeed a special case of this scenario, as demonstrated in the following lemma (a simple proof is provided in Appendix~\ref{sec:proof_special_case}):
% \begin{lemma}
% \label{lemma:special_case}
% Given an $\alpha$-approximation policy for the choice-based scenario, we can derive an $\alpha$-approximation policy for the reject-or-accept scenario.
% \end{lemma}
% Additionally, this scenario can be applied to hotel room booking, as illustrated below:
% \begin{example}[Advanced booking for itineraries over time intervals] \end{example}
\section{Warm-up: Optimal Policy for Single-Resource Case}
\label{sec:warm_up}
In this section, we present a polynomial-time optimal policy for a special case of the reject-or-accept scenario with a single resource $(M=1)$. This serves to illustrate the decomposable property, which forms the foundation of our algorithmic design for more general settings.
A straightforward approach to solving this case is through dynamic programming, as described below. Let $\mathcal{I}$ be an instance of the problem. Since there is only one resource, we use $w_t$ to denote $w_{t1}$ for simplicity. We capture the availability status of the resource across time slots with a binary vector $\mathbf{s} \in \{0,1\}^N$, where $s_i = 1$ indicates that slot $i \in \mathcal{N}$ is available. We assume $s_0 = s_{N+1} = 0$ for convenience. Let $\mathbf{1}_{[a,b]}$ denote a binary vector with ones in the interval $[a, b]$ and zeros elsewhere. Denote by $G_t(\mathbf{s})$ the optimal expected revenue to obtain at the beginning of period $t \in \mathcal{T}$ given state $\mathbf{s}$. Then, $\overline{V}(\mathcal{I}) = G_1(\mathbf{1}_{[1,N]})$ can be computed recursively as follows:
\begin{align}
\tag{DP}
\label{eq:naive_dp}
G_t(\mathbf{s}) = \begin{cases}
(1-p_t)G_{t+1}(\mathbf{s}) + p_t \max \Bigl\{ w_t + G_{t+1}(\mathbf{s} - \mathbf{1}_{[l_t, r_t]}), G_{t+1}(\mathbf{s}) \Bigr\}, & \text{if } \mathbf{1}_{[l_t, r_t]} \le \mathbf{s}, \\
G_{t+1}(\mathbf{s}), & \text{otherwise},
\end{cases}
\end{align}
for all $t \in \mathcal{T}$ and $\mathbf{s} \in \{0,1\}^N$, with the boundary condition $G_{T+1}(\mathbf{s}) = 0$ for all $\mathbf{s} \in \{0, 1\}^N$. This dynamic program follows the principle that if the requested interval $[l_t, r_t]$ is available under the current status, the decision-maker chooses the option that maximizes the expected future revenue. However, the number of possible states is exponential in the number of time slots, making the naive implementation computationally impractical.
To this end, we demonstrate that the dynamic program can be implemented more efficiently by reducing the number of states to a polynomial size. We begin by introducing a definition that characterizes the structure of the resource status:
\begin{definition}[Maximal Sequence] Given any vector $\mathbf{s} \in \{0, 1\}^N$, an interval $[a,b]$ with $1 \le a \le b \le N$ is called a \emph{maximal sequence} in $\mathbf{s}$ (denoted by $[a,b] \sim \mathbf{s}$) if and only if $s_i = 1$ for all $i \in [a,b]$, and $s_{a-1} = 0$ and $s_{b+1} = 0$. \end{definition}
This concept, introduced in \cite{rusmevichientong2023revenue} and \cite{zhu2023assign}, has been used to develop decomposable structures for evaluating policies or deriving optimal algorithms in static seat allocation problems. Here, we leverage this notion to establish a decomposable property that enables a more efficient dynamic programming formulation for our special case and guides algorithm design for more general settings.
It is easy to see that the resource status $\mathbf{s}$ may accommodate multiple maximal sequences.
Our decomposable property behind the naive dynamic program comes from the following key observation: given a resource status $\mathbf{s}$ that contains a maximal sequence $[a, b]$, the future requests can be categorized into two separate cases depending on whether the current request $[l_t, r_t] \subseteq [a, b]$. Specifically, if $[l_t, r_t] \nsubseteq [a,b]$, the current request either cannot be fulfilled (because it spans beyond the boundaries of $[a, b]$), or fulfilled outside $[a,b]$, with both cases having no impact on the sequence $[a,b]$.
Otherwise, the request with $[l_t, r_t] \subseteq [a,b]$ can be fulfilled using only the time slots within $[a,b]$, thereby affecting only the availability status within that interval.
Based on this idea, we formally describe our decomposed dynamic program as follows:
Let $F_t([a,b])$ be the optimal expected revenue to obtain from selling time slots $[a, b]$ at the beginning of period $t \in \mathcal{T}$, given that $[a,b]$ is a maximal sequence. Then, $F_t([a,b])$ satisfies the following recursion:
\begin{align}
\label{eq:decomp_dp}
\tag{DDP}
\begin{split}
F_{t}([a,b]) = \begin{cases}
(1 - p_t) F_{t+1}([a, b]) + p_t\max \Big\{w_t + F_{t+1}([a, l_t-1]) + F_{t+1}([r_t+1,b]) ,F_{t+1}([a, b]) \Big\}, & \text{ if } [l_t, r_t] \subseteq [a,b], \\
F_{t+1}([a,b]), & \text{ if } [l_t, r_t] \nsubseteq [a,b],
\end{cases}
\end{split}
\end{align}
for any $t \in \mathcal{T}$ and $1 \le a \le b \le N$. The boundary conditions are that $F_{T + 1}([a, b]) = 0$ for any $0 \le a, b \le N + 1 $ and $F_{t}(\emptyset) = 0$ for any $t \in \mathcal{T}$. We now establish the appropriateness of this approach.
\begin{proposition}[Decomposability]
\label{prop:decomp}
Fix an instance $\mathcal{I}$ for the reject-or-accept scenario with $M = 1$. For any state $\mathbf{s} \in \{ 0, 1\}^N$ and $t \in \mathcal{T}$, the value function satisfies
\begin{align}
\label{eq:decomp}
G_t(\mathbf{s}) = \sum_{1\le a \le b \le N:[a,b] \sim \mathbf{s}} F_t([a,b]).
\end{align}
\end{proposition}
\proof{Proof of Proposition \ref{prop:decomp}.}
We prove the result by backward induction. First, observe that when $t = T + 1$, \eqref{eq:decomp} holds trivially since both $G_{T+1}(\cdot)$ and $F_{T+1}(\cdot)$ are defined to be zero.
Now, fix $t' \in \mathcal{T}$ and assume \eqref{eq:decomp} holds for $t> t'$. Fix an arbitrary state $\mathbf{s} \in \{ 0, 1\}^N$. We consider two cases: (i) If $\mathbf{1}_{[l_t,r_t]} \nleq \mathbf{s}$,
we have
\begin{align*}
G_{t'}(\mathbf{s}) = G_{t'+1}(\mathbf{s}) = \sum_{1\le a \le b \le N:[a,b]\sim \mathbf{s}}F_{t'+1}([a,b]) = \sum_{1\le a \le b \le N:[a,b]\sim \mathbf{s}}F_{t'}([a,b]),
\end{align*}
where the first equality uses \eqref{eq:naive_dp}, the second equality uses the induction assumption, and the third equality uses \eqref{eq:decomp_dp} and the fact that $[l_t, r_t] \nsubseteq [a,b]$ for any $[a,b]\sim \mathbf{s}$.
(ii) If $\mathbf{1}_{[l_t,r_t]} \leq \mathbf{s}$, let $[a',b']$ be the maximal sequence in $\mathbf{s}$ such that $[l_t,r_t] \subseteq [a', b']$ and $\mathcal{U} \triangleq \{ [a,b]| [a,b] \sim \mathbf{s} \}$ be the full set of maximal sequences. Then, we have
\begin{align*}
& G_{t'}(\mathbf{s}) = (1-p_{t'})G_{t'+1}(\mathbf{s}) + p_{t'} \max \Big\{ w_{t'} + G_{t'+1}(\mathbf{s} - \mathbf{1}_{[l_{t'}, r_{t'}]}), G_{t'+1}(\mathbf{s})\Big\} = (1-p_{t'})\Big(\sum_{[a,b] \in \mathcal{U}} F_{t'+1}([a,b])\Big) \\
&\quad + p_{t'} \max \Bigl\{ w_{t'} + \sum_{[a,b] \in \mathcal{U}: [a,b] \ne [a',b']} F_{t'+1}([a,b]) + F_{t'+1}([a',l_{t'}-1]) + F_{t'+1}([r_{t'}+1, b']) , \sum_{[a,b] \in \mathcal{U}} F_{t'+1}([a,b]) \Bigr\} \\
& \quad = (1-p_{t'})\Big(\sum_{[a,b] \in \mathcal{U}} F_{t'+1}([a,b])\Big) + p_{t'} \Bigl(\sum_{[a,b] \in \mathcal{U}: [a,b] \ne [a',b']} F_{t'+1}([a,b]) + \max \Big\{ w_{t'} + F_{t'+1}([a',l_{t'}-1]) \\
& \quad + F_{t'+1}([r_{t'}+1, b']) , F_{t'+1}([a',b']) \Big\} \Bigr) = \sum_{[a,b] \in \mathcal{U}: [a,b] \ne [a',b']} F_{t'+1}([a,b]) + (1-p_{t'})F_{t'+1}([a',b']) \\
&\quad +p_{t'}\max \Big\{ w_{t'} + F_{t'+1}([a',l_{t'}-1]) + F_{t'+1}([r_{t'}+1, b']) , F_{t'+1}([a',b']) \Big\} = \sum_{[a,b] \in \mathcal{U}} F_{t'}([a,b]),
\end{align*}
where the first equality uses \eqref{eq:naive_dp}, the second equality uses the induction assumption, the third equality is obtained by rearranging terms, and the last equality uses \eqref{eq:decomp_dp}. Therefore, we conclude that \eqref{eq:decomp} holds for any $t \in \mathcal{T}$ and $\mathbf{s} \in \{ 0, 1\}^N$.
\hfill \Halmos
Leveraging Proposition~\ref{prop:decomp}, any value \( G_t(\mathbf{s}) \) can be computed in \( O(TN^2) \) time. Therefore, the dynamic programming approach \eqref{eq:naive_dp} admits a polynomial-time implementation. %We summarize this result below:
\begin{corollary}
\label{corollary:special}
The reject-or-accept scenario with a single resource (\(M = 1\)) admits a polynomial-time optimal policy.
\end{corollary}
% By proposition~\ref{prop:decomp}, we immediately obtain a polynomial-time optimal policy that utilizes \eqref{eq:decomp_dp} as listed in Algorithm~\ref{alg:m_one}. This result is also summarized in Theorem~\ref{thm:special}.
% \begin{algorithm}
% % \renewcommand{\thealgorithm}{Batch-Balancing}
% \caption{Dynamic programming for the reject-or-accept scenario with $M=1$}
% \label{alg:m_one}
% \begin{algorithmic}[1]
% \REQUIRE The number of seats, the horizon length $T$, and the request types $\{ (p_t, l_t, r_t, w_t) \}_{t \in [T]}$
% % \ENSURE The selected candidate set $\mathcal{A}$
% \STATE Initialize the state by $\mathbf{s} := \mathbf{1}$.
% \FOR{period $t = 1$ \TO $T$}
% \STATE Given the status $\mathbf{s}$, let the maximal sequence that contains $[l_t, r_t]$ be $[a, b]$ if any.
% \IF{request $t$ arrives}
% \IF{$[a, b]$ exists and Equation (\ref{eq:decomp_dp}) for
% $F_t([a, b])$ accepts the request}
% \STATE Accept the request.
% \STATE Update the status by $\mathbf{s}:=\mathbf{s} - \mathbf{1}_{[l_t, r_t]}$.
% \ENDIF
% \ENDIF
% \ENDFOR
% \end{algorithmic}
% \end{algorithm}
% \subsection{General Case}
\section{Reject-or-Accept Scenario}
\label{sec:single_item}
In this section, we present a \((1 - 1/e)\)-approximation policy for the reject-or-accept scenario. Motivated by the decomposed dynamic programming approach in the single-resource case (\(M = 1\)) (see Equation~\eqref{eq:decomp_dp}), we formulate a fluid relaxation \eqref{eq:lp_single} for the general case where \(M > 1\). Building on the optimal solution to this relaxation, we design a proposal-based algorithm that leverages virtual resource statuses, which preserves probabilistic independence across resources.
\subsubsection*{Fluid Relaxation.}
The first key component of our policy is the fluid relaxation for the online optimum. For any given policy, let \( x^j_t([a,b]) \) denote the probability that \([a,b]\) is a maximal sequence of resource \( j \in \mathcal{M} \) at the beginning of period \( t \in \mathcal{T} \). Let \( y^j_t([a,b]) \) denote the joint probability that (i) \([a,b]\) is a maximal sequence of resource \( j \) at the beginning of period \( t \), and (ii) the request arriving at period \( t \) is allocated the time slots \([l_t, r_t] \subseteq [a,b]\) of resource \( j \).
Then, the fluid relaxation is presented as follows:
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
\label{eq:lp_single}
\tag{LP}
\max_{\mathbf{x} \ge \mathbf{0}, \mathbf{y} \ge \mathbf{0}} \quad& \sum_{j \in \mathcal{M}} \sum_{t \in \mathcal{T}} \sum_{1 \le a \le b \le N} w_{tj} y^j_t([a,b]) \\
\label{eq:allocate_single}
\tag{Online}
\text{ s.t.} \qquad& y^j_t([a, b]) \le x^j_t([a,b]) \cdot p_t, && \forall j \in \mathcal{M}, t \in \mathcal{T}, 1 \le a \le b \le N \\
\label{eq:no_allocate}
\tag{Feasibility}
\quad& y^j_t([a, b]) \le \mathbbm{1}\{ [l_t,r_t] \subseteq [a,b] \}, && \forall j \in \mathcal{M}, t \in \mathcal{T}, 1 \le a \le b \le N \\
\quad& x^j_t([a,b]) = x^j_{t-1}([a,b]) \quad - \quad y^j_{t-1}([a,b]) && +
\sum_{ r_{t-1} \le b' \le N} \mathbbm{1}\{ b+1 = l_{t-1} \}y^j_{t-1}([a, b']) \notag
\\
\label{eq:trans_single}
\tag{Balance}
& \quad + \sum_{1 \le a' \le l_{t-1} } \mathbbm{1}\{ r_{t-1} = a-1 \} y^j_{t-1}([a',b]), && \forall j \in \mathcal{M}, 2 \le t \le T, 1 \le a \le b \le N \\
\label{eq:boundary_single}
\tag{Boundary}
\quad& x^j_1([a,b]) = \mathbbm{1}\{ [a,b]=[1,N]\}, && \forall j \in \mathcal{M}, 1 \le a \le b \le N \\
\label{eq:across_single}
\tag{Capacity}
\quad& \sum_{j \in \mathcal{M}}\sum_{1 \le a \le b \le N} y^j_t([a,b]) \le p_t, && \forall t \in \mathcal{T}.
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
Here, $\mathbbm{1}\{\cdot\}$ is the indicator function, and we use $\texttt{LP}(\mathcal{I})$ to denote the optimal objective value of \eqref{eq:lp_single}. We explain the constraints as follows.
Inequality \eqref{eq:allocate_single} is due to that since arrivals are independent of resource status, the allocation probability for any online policy is bounded by $x^j_t([a,b]) \cdot p_t$. Inequality \eqref{eq:no_allocate} says that allocation is only feasible if $[l_t, r_t] \subseteq [a,b]$. Equation \eqref{eq:trans_single} tracks how maximal sequences evolve across periods, either unchanged or split by allocations. Equation \eqref{eq:boundary_single} initializes the resource status with full availability. Inequality \eqref{eq:across_single} ensures that the total allocation probability across resources does not exceed the request arrival probability.
This fluid relaxation generalizes the decomposed dynamic program \eqref{eq:decomp_dp} to multiple resources. When $M=1$, constraints \eqref{eq:allocate_single}--\eqref{eq:boundary_single} exactly correspond to the dynamic program. The additional constraint \eqref{eq:across_single} enforces that, in the multi-resource setting, each request is fulfilled at most once.
Since any feasible policy to the dynamic program induces, in expectation, a feasible solution to this linear program, the following upper bound on the optimal value follows immediately (a simple proof is provided in Appendix~\ref{subsec:proof_in_reject_or_accept}).
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:upper} For any instance $\mathcal{I}$ of the reject-or-accept scenario, we have $\overline{V}(\mathcal{I}) \le \emph{\texttt{LP}}(\mathcal{I})$.
\end{lemma}
% To relate this to the decomposed dynamic program \eqref{eq:decomp_dp}, we note that constraints \eqref{eq:allocate_single}--\eqref{eq:boundary_single} reformulate \eqref{eq:decomp_dp} as a linear program in the case where $M=1$. For multiple resources, we incorporate constraint \eqref{eq:across_single} to enforce that each request is fulfilled by at most one resource. Since any policy yields a feasible solution to this linear program, we immediately obtain the following result (a simple proof is provided in Appendix~\ref{subsec:proof_in_reject_or_accept}):
% The optimal objective value of \eqref{eq:lp_single} is denoted by $\texttt{LP}(\mathcal{I})$. We utilize the indication function $\mathbbm{1}\{ \cdot \}$. Next, we explain these constraints.
% Since the requests' arrivals are independent, we have that for any (online) policy, whether request $t$ arrives is independent of the status of resource $j$ at the beginning of period $t$, which is reflected in \eqref{eq:allocate_single}. It is obvious that if $[a,b]$ does not contain $[l_t, r_t]$, then $y^j_t([a,b]) = 0$ as shown in \eqref{eq:no_allocate}. Constraint \eqref{eq:trans_single} accounts for how the resource status transits across periods. Specifically, $x^j_t([a,b])$ is composed of the probability that $[a,b]$ is the maximal sequence of resource $j$ at the beginning of the last period and no allocation takes place during the last period (i.e., $x^j_{t-1}([a,b]) - y^j_{t-1}([a,b])$), and the probabilities that $[a',b']$ is the maximal sequence of resource $j$ at the beginning of the last period but the allocation splits $[a',b']$ such that one resulting maximal sequence is $[a,b]$. In addition, \eqref{eq:boundary_single} prescribes the boundary values, $x^j_1([a,b])$ as initial resource statuses is that all times slots are available. Indeed, constraints \eqref{eq:allocate_single}, \eqref{eq:no_allocate}, \eqref{eq:trans_single} and \eqref{eq:boundary_single} is a reformulation of the dynamic program \eqref{eq:decomp_dp} as a linear program for each resource. In other words, when $M = 1$, the optimal objective value of \eqref{eq:lp_single} is equal to $F_1([1,N])$. Whereas when there are multiple resources and each request can be fulfilled by at most one resource, we add a constraint \eqref{eq:across_single} to upper bound the total probability of allocating time slots across resources at each period. Since any policy corresponds to a certain feasible solution to \eqref{eq:lp_single}, we immediately get that
% \begin{lemma}
% \label{lemma:upper}
% For any instance $\mathcal{I}$ of the reject-or-accept scenario, we have $\overline{V}(\mathcal{I}) \le \emph{\texttt{LP}}(\mathcal{I})$.
% \end{lemma}
\subsubsection*{Algorithm Design.}
We now describe our policy, which builds on the concept of virtual resource status (which is constructed in the algorithm and will be discussed after presenting the algorithm). At each period $t \in \mathcal{T}$, given the virtual status $\bar{\mathbf{s}}^j_t \in \{0,1\}^N$ of each resource $j \in \mathcal{M}$ (carried over from the previous period), the policy proceeds in two stages: proposal and allocation.
\paragraph{Proposal stage.}
This stage occurs prior to the realization of request $t$'s arrival. Each resource independently submits a proposal to allocate its time slots, regardless of whether the request arrives. For each \( j \in \mathcal{M} \), let \( [a,b] \) be the maximal sequence in \( \bar{\mathbf{s}}^j_t \) such that \( [a,b] \supseteq [l_t, r_t] \), if such a sequence exists. Then, resource \( j \) is included in the proposal set \( \mathcal{P} \) with probability \( \frac{y^j_t([a,b])}{x^j_t([a,b]) \cdot p_t} \).
\paragraph{Allocation stage.}
Among all proposed resources, the policy selects the one with the highest revenue:
\(
j^* = \arg\max_{j \in \mathcal{P}} \{ w_{tj} \}.
\)
If the request arrives, the policy allocates the interval $[l_t, r_t]$ from resource $j^*$, and updates its virtual status by setting $\bar{\mathbf{s}}^{j^*}_{t+1} \leftarrow \bar{\mathbf{s}}^{j^*}_t - \mathbf{1}_{[l_t, r_t]}$. If the request does not arrive, the virtual status of resource $j^*$ is carried forward.
For each $j \in \mathcal{P} \setminus \{ j^* \}$, the virtual status is updated as follows: with probability $p_t$, set $\bar{\mathbf{s}}^j_{t+1} \leftarrow \bar{\mathbf{s}}^j_t - \mathbf{1}_{[l_t, r_t]}$; with probability $1 - p_t$, keep $\bar{\mathbf{s}}^j_{t+1} = \bar{\mathbf{s}}^j_t$. For all resources not in $\mathcal{P}$, the virtual status is simply carried forward to the next period.
The full procedure is summarized in Algorithm~\ref{alg:single_item}.
\begin{algorithm}
\caption{$(1-\frac{1}{e})$-Approximation Policy for the Reject-or-Accept Scenario}
\label{alg:single_item}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\REQUIRE Instance $\mathcal{I} = \{\mathcal{M}, \mathcal{N}, \{ \theta_t\}_{t \in \mathcal{T}} \}$
\STATE Initialize $\bar{\mathbf{s}}^j_1 \gets \mathbf{1}_{[1,N]}$ for all $j \in \mathcal{M}$. Let $(\mathbf{x}, \mathbf{y})$ be the optimal solution to \eqref{eq:lp_single}.
\FOR{each period $t \in \mathcal{T}$}
\STATE \textbf{Proposal Stage:} Initialize $\mathcal{P} \gets \emptyset$.
\COMMENT{Before the realization of request $t$'s arrival}
\begin{ALC@g}
\STATE \textbf{for} each $j \in \mathcal{M}$ with $[a,b] \sim \bar{\mathbf{s}}^j_t$ s.t. $[l_t, r_t] \subseteq [a,b]$ \textbf{do}: Add $j$ to $\mathcal{P}$ w.p. $\frac{y^j_t([a,b])}{x^j_t([a,b])\cdot p_t}$ independently.
\end{ALC@g}
\STATE \textbf{Allocation Stage:} Initialize $\bar{\mathbf{s}}^j_{t+1} \gets \bar{\mathbf{s}}^j_t$ for all $j \in \mathcal{M}$.
\begin{ALC@g}
\STATE $j^* = \arg\max_{j \in \mathcal{P}} w_{tj}$ or $0$ if $\mathcal{P} = \emptyset$.
\IF{$\mathcal{P} \ne \emptyset$ and request $t$ arrives}
\STATE Allocate $[l_t, r_t]$ of resource $j^*$ to $t$. Update $\bar{\mathbf{s}}^{j^*}_{t+1} \gets \bar{\mathbf{s}}^{j^*}_t - \mathbf{1}_{[l_t, r_t]}$.
\ENDIF
\STATE \textbf{for} each $j \in \mathcal{P} \setminus \{j^*\}$ \textbf{do}: Update $\bar{\mathbf{s}}^j_{t+1} \gets \bar{\mathbf{s}}^j_t - \mathbf{1}_{[l_t, r_t]}$ w.p. $p_t$ independently.
\end{ALC@g}
\ENDFOR
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\subsubsection*{Virtual Resource Status.}
Our policy introduces a key concept, virtual resource status, which serves as a foundation for our approach. The motivation stems from the challenge of translating the optimal solution of the fluid relaxation \eqref{eq:lp_single} into an actionable policy.
Specifically, in \eqref{eq:lp_single}, the ratio \(\frac{y^j_t([a,b])}{x^j_t([a,b]) \cdot p_t}\) can be interpreted as the intended conditional probability of allocating the interval \([l_t, r_t]\) of resource \(j\) to request \(t\), given that \([a,b]\) is its current maximal sequence and request $t$ arrives. However, these probabilities may not be compatible across resources. For example, consider the case where \(p_t = 1\), and for two resources \(j = 1, 2\), we have \(x^j_t([a_j, b_j]) = y^j_t([a_j, b_j]) = 0.5\).
Although this satisfies constraints \eqref{eq:allocate_single} and \eqref{eq:across_single}, strictly adhering to the conditional probabilities would imply that both resources allocate time slots simultaneously, which may not be feasible unless the events \([a_j, b_j] \sim \mathbf{s}^j_t\) for \(j = 1, 2\) are disjoint. Enforcing such negative correlation, however, is nontrivial.
To resolve this, our policy introduces the notion of the virtual resource status, a generalization of the matched/unmatched status used in the proposal-based framework of \cite{braverman2022max, braverman2025new}, which enables probabilistic independence across resources while maintaining consistency with the marginal behavior specified by the fluid relaxation.
Let $\mathbf{s}^j_t \in \{0,1\}^N$ denote the actual availability statuses of resource $j$ at period $t$.
Then, the constructed virtual resource status will satisfy the following properties, which we will establish shortly:
\begin{property}
\label{property:virtual}
\begin{enumerate}
\item[$(i)$] [{\sc Lower Bound}] \(\bar{\mathbf{s}}^j_t \le \mathbf{s}^j_t \) almost surely for all \( t \in \mathcal{T}, j \in \mathcal{M} \).
\item[$(ii)$] [{\sc Marginal Probability}] \(\Pr\{ [a,b] \sim \bar{\mathbf{s}}^j_t \} = x^j_t([a,b]) \text{ for all } t \in \mathcal{T}, j \in \mathcal{M}, 1\le a\le b \le N\).
\item[$(iii)$] [{\sc Independence}] The collections \( \{ \bar{\mathbf{s}}^j_t \}_{t \in \mathcal{T}} \) are independent across resources $j \in \mathcal{M}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{property}
These properties are central to both the design and analysis of our algorithm. (i) ensures that the virtual status is a conservative approximation of the true availability, thereby guaranteeing the feasibility of allocations (see line 8 in Algorithm~\ref{alg:single_item}). (ii) guarantees alignment with the marginal distributions prescribed by the fluid relaxation. (iii) enables a tractable implementation by preserving probabilistic independence across resources.
Now we formally verify that our constructed virtual resource statuses indeed satisfy Property~\ref{property:virtual}.
% These properties are central to our algorithm design and analysis. Property $(i)$ ensures that the virtual status is a conservative approximation of the true status, enabling feasible allocation. Property $(ii)$ guarantees alignment with \eqref{eq:lp_single}’s marginal distributions. Property $(iii)$ ensures tractable analysis by maintaining independence across resources. We establish these properties in what follows.
% Before presenting our policy, we introduce a key concept of virtual resource status that our policy relies on. And we give some motivation before presenting this notion.
% Note that \eqref{eq:lp_single} provides a guide on fulfilling the request with each resource in the sense that $\frac{y^j_t([a,b])}{x^j_t([a,b])\cdot p_t}$ is an intended conditional probability of allocating time slots $[l_r,r_t]$ of resource $j$ to request $t$ if $[a,b]$ is the maximal sequence of resource $j$ and request $t$ arrives. Whereas it may not be achievable since these conditional probabilities may not be compatible across resources. To illustrate this, consider a specific period $t$ with $p_t = 1$ and two resources. And $x^1_t([a_1, b_1]) = y^1_t([a_1, b_1]) = 0.5$ for resource $j = 1$ and a certain interval $[a_1, b_1]$. Also, $x^2_t([a_2, b_2]) = y^2_t([a_2, b_2]) = 0.5$ for resource $j = 2$ and a certain interval $[a_2, b_2]$. We note these specific values do not violate constraints \eqref{eq:allocate_single} and \eqref{eq:across_single} for the period $t$ in the sense that $y^j_t([a_j, b_k]) = x^j_t([a_j, b_j])\cdot p_t$ for $j = 1$ or $2$ and $\sum_{j \in \{ 1, 2\} } y^j_t([a_j, b_j]) = p_t$. If our policy strictly follows the guideline of this solution, then we need to allocate some time slots of resource $j$ to request $t$ once $[a_j, b_j]$ is the maximal sequence of resource $j \in \{ 1, 2\}$ at the beginning of period $t$ since $\frac{y^j_t([a_j, b_j])}{x^j_t([a_j, b_j])\cdot p_t} = 1$ and $p_t = 1$. However, such policy is actionable with no conflict of concurrent allocation across resources only when the maximal sequences $[a_j, b_j]$ of resource $j$ will not occur at the same time. Unfortunately, keeping such a ``negative correlation'' among resource statuses is difficult. Thus, inspired by \cite{braverman2022max, braverman2025new}, we propose a concept of virtual resource status that can be independent across resources to alleviate such congestion while keeping an approximate performance to \eqref{eq:lp_single}.
% For ease of exposition, we let $(\mathbf{x}, \mathbf{y})$ be the optimal solution to Problem \eqref{eq:lp_single}. Let $\mathbf{s}^j_t \in \{0,1\}^N$ be the running resource status of resource $j \in \mathcal{M}$ at the beginning of period $t \in \mathcal{T}$. The virtual resource status of resource $j \in \mathcal{M}$ at the beginning of period $t \in \mathcal{T}$, denoted by $\bar{\mathbf{s}}^j_t$, is a random vector introduced in our policy with the following properties:
% \begin{property}
% \label{property:virtual}
% \begin{enumerate}
% \item[$(i)$] \textbf{Lower Bound:} $\bar{\mathbf{s}}^j_t \le \mathbf{s}^j_t$ for any period $t \in \mathcal{T}$ and resource $j \in \mathcal{M}$ almost surely.
% \item[$(ii)$] \textbf{Marginal Probability:} For any period $t \in \mathcal{T}$, resource $j \in \mathcal{M}$, and $1 \le a \le b \le N$, $\Pr\{ [a,b] \sim \bar{\mathbf{s}}^j_t \} = x^j_t([a,b])$.
% \item[$(iii)$] \textbf{Independence:} The random vectors $\{ \bar{\mathbf{s}}^j_t\}_{t \in \mathcal{T}, j \in \mathcal{M}}$ are independent across resources $j \in \mathcal{M}$.
% \end{enumerate}
% \end{property}
% These properties are key in our performance analysis and are derived based on how our policy simulates these statuses, which will be described later.
% $(i)$ implies that if time slots $[l_t,r_t]$ are available for the virtual resource status $\bar{\mathbf{s}}^j_t$ of resource $j$, then they are available for allocation to request $t$ but not vice versa. Thus, our policy can utilize the virtual resource status as a conservative proxy for the real resource status. $(ii)$ says that the virtual resource status will follow distributions of maximal sequences from the optimal solution strictly. $(iii)$ claims that the virtual resource statuses are independent across different resources.
% \begin{algorithm}
% \caption{$(1-\frac{1}{e})$-Approximation Policy for the Reject-or-Accept Scenario}
% \label{alg:single_item}
% \begin{algorithmic}[1]
% \REQUIRE Instance $\mathcal{I} \triangleq \{\mathcal{M}, \mathcal{N}, \{ \theta_t\}_{t \in \mathcal{T}} \}$.
% \STATE Initialize the virtual resource status $\bar{s}^j_1 = \mathbf{1}_{[1,N]}$ for any resource $j \in \mathcal{M}$.
% \STATE Let $(\mathbf{x,y})$ be the optimal solution to \eqref{eq:lp_single}.
% \FOR{each period $t \in \mathcal{T}$}
% \STATE {\textbf{Proposal Stage}}: \COMMENT{Independent of the incoming request's arrival}
% \begin{ALC@g}
% \STATE Initialize the proposal set $\mathcal{P} = \emptyset$.
% \FOR{$j \in \mathcal{M}$}
% \IF{there exists $[a,b] \sim \bar{\mathbf{s}}^j_t$ such that $[l_t, r_t] \subseteq [a,b]$}
% \STATE Add $j$ to $\mathcal{P}$ with probability $\frac{y^j_t([a,b])}{x^j_t([a,b])\cdot p_t}$ independently.
% \ENDIF
% \ENDFOR
% \end{ALC@g}
% \STATE {\textbf{Allocation Stage}}: \\
% \begin{ALC@g}
% \STATE $\bar{\mathbf{s}}^j_{t+1} \leftarrow \bar{\mathbf{s}}^j_t$ for any resource $j \in \mathcal{M}$.
% \IF{$\mathcal{P}$ is non-empty}
% \STATE Pick some $j^* = \arg\max_{j\in \mathcal{P}} \{ w_{tj}\}$.
% \IF{request $t$ arrives}
% \STATE Allocate time slots $[l_t,r_t]$ of resource $j^*$ to request $t$.
% \STATE $\bar{\mathbf{s}}^{j^*}_{t+1} \leftarrow \bar{\mathbf{s}}^{j^*}_t - \mathbf{1}_{[l_t, r_t]}$.
% \ENDIF
% \FOR{$j \in \mathcal{P} \backslash \{ j^* \}$}
% \STATE With probability $p_t$ (independently) $\bar{\mathbf{s}}^j_{t+1} \leftarrow \bar{\mathbf{s}}^j_t - \mathbf{1}_{[l_t, r_t]}$.
% \ENDFOR
% \ENDIF
% \end{ALC@g}
% \ENDFOR
% \end{algorithmic}
% \end{algorithm}
\begin{proposition}
\label{prop:virtual_proerty}
The virtual resource statuses \(\{ \bar{\mathbf{s}}^j_t \}_{j \in \mathcal{M}, t \in \mathcal{T}}\) in Algorithm~\ref{alg:single_item} satisfy Property~\ref{property:virtual}.
\end{proposition}
\proof{Proof of Proposition \ref{prop:virtual_proerty}.}
We prove the result by induction on $t \in \mathcal{T}$.
\textbf{Base case ($t = 1$):}
By initialization, $\bar{\mathbf{s}}^j_1 = \mathbf{s}^j_1 = \mathbf{1}_{[1,N]}$ for all $j \in \mathcal{M}$, and thus the only maximal sequence is $[1,N]$. Therefore, we have
\(
\Pr\{ [a,b] \sim \bar{\mathbf{s}}^j_1 \} = \mathbbm{1}\{ [a,b] = [1,N] \} = x^j_1([a,b]).
\)
Moreover, since all virtual statuses are deterministic at initialization, independence across resources trivially holds.
\textbf{Inductive step:} Assume the property holds for all periods up to \(t'\). We show it holds for \(t'+1\).
(i) Lower Bound:
If resource $j^* \in \mathcal{P}$ is selected for allocation, its virtual status is updated as
\(
\bar{\mathbf{s}}^{j^*}_{t'+1} = \bar{\mathbf{s}}^{j^*}_{t'} - \mathbf{1}_{[l_{t'}, r_{t'}]},
\)
which mirrors the actual allocation. Thus, $\bar{\mathbf{s}}^{j^*}_{t'+1} \le \mathbf{s}^{j^*}_{t'+1}$. For any $j \in \mathcal{M} \setminus \{j^*\}$, the virtual status is either unchanged or updated by subtracting $\mathbf{1}_{[l_{t'}, r_{t'}]}$, yielding
\(
\bar{\mathbf{s}}^j_{t'+1} \le \bar{\mathbf{s}}^j_{t'}.
\)
By the induction hypothesis, $\bar{\mathbf{s}}^j_{t'} \le \mathbf{s}^j_{t'} = \mathbf{s}^j_{t'+1}$, and therefore
$
\bar{\mathbf{s}}^j_{t'+1} \le \mathbf{s}^j_{t'+1}.
$
(ii) Marginal Probability:
We show that
$
\Pr\{ [a,b] \sim \bar{\mathbf{s}}^j_{t'+1} \} = x^j_{t'+1}([a,b])
$
holds for all $1 \le a \le b \le N$. This probability consists of two contributions: the probability that $[a,b]$ was a maximal sequence at period $t'$ and remained unchanged, and the probability that $[a,b]$ was newly formed by a split due to an allocation.
The former is given by:
$$
\Pr\{ [a,b] \sim \bar{\mathbf{s}}^j_{t'}, \text{ and unchanged} \} = x^j_{t'}([a,b]) - y^j_{t'}([a,b]),
$$
since $y^j_{t'}([a,b])$ corresponds to the probability that the allocation occurs.
For the latter, $[a,b] \sim \bar{\mathbf{s}}^j_{t'+1}$ may arise from a breakup of a longer maximal sequence $[a',b']$, where $[a,b] = [a', l_{t'} - 1]$ or $[a,b] = [r_{t'} + 1, b']$.
These contributions are:
$
\sum_{r_{t'} \le b' \le N} \mathbbm{1}\{ b = l_{t'} - 1 \} y^j_{t'}([a, b']) + \sum_{1 \le a' \le l_{t'}} \mathbbm{1}\{ r_{t'} + 1 = a \} y^j_{t'}([a', b]).
$
Adding both contributions yields
$
\Pr\{ [a,b] \sim \bar{\mathbf{s}}^j_{t'+1} \} = x^j_{t'+1}([a,b])$, which follows directly from Equality \eqref{eq:trans_single}.
(iii) Independence:
Proposals and updates in the algorithm are executed independently across resources. By the induction hypothesis, the collections $\{ \bar{\mathbf{s}}^j_t \}_{1 \le t \le t'}$ are independent across $j \in \mathcal{M}$, and the independence is preserved by the update procedure. Thus,
$
\{ \bar{\mathbf{s}}^j_t \}_{1 \le t \le t'+1}$ are independent across $j \in \mathcal{M}.
$
\hfill \Halmos
\subsubsection*{Performance Analysis.}
%We establish that Algorithm~\ref{alg:single_item} achieves an approximation ratio of \(1 - 1/e\) by bounding its expected performance.
%
%
% \subsubsection*{Performance Analysis.} We establish the performance guarantee by first proving Property~\ref{property:virtual}, and then showing that $\frac{V^{\pi}(\mathcal{I})}{\texttt{LP}(\mathcal{I})} \ge 1 - \frac{1}{e}$, where $\pi$ is the policy described in Algorithm~\ref{alg:single_item} throughout this subsection, based on the proven property.
% \begin{proposition}
% \label{prop:virtual_proerty}
% The virtual resource statuses $\{\bar{\mathbf{s}}^j_t \}_{j \in \mathcal{M}, t \in \mathcal{T}}$ described in Algorithm~\ref{alg:single_item} satisfy Property~\ref{property:virtual}.
% \end{proposition}
% \proof{Proof of Proposition~ \ref{prop:virtual_proerty}.}
% Our proof is based on induction. When $t = 1$, we know $\bar{\mathbf{s}}^j_1 = \mathbf{s}^j_1 = \mathbf{1}_{[1,N]}$ for any resource $j \in \mathcal{M}$, and there is only a maximal sequence $[1,N]$ in the resource status of any resource $j \in \mathcal{M}$, which implies that $\Pr\{[a,b] \sim \bar{\mathbf{s}}^j_1 \} = x^j_1([a,b]) = \mathbbm{1}\{[a,b]=[1,N] \}$. In addition, since virtual resource statuses are deterministic at the beginning of period $1$, they are also independent across resources. Thus, $\{\bar{\mathbf{s}}^j_1 \}_{j \in \mathcal{M}}$ satisfies Property~\ref{property:virtual}. Next, assume that properties hold when $t \le t' \in \mathcal{T}$, where $t' \ge 1$ is a fixed number.
% \paragraph{On $(i)$.} Since we update with $\bar{\mathbf{s}}^{j^*}_{t'+1} = \bar{\mathbf{s}}^{j^*}_t - \mathbf{1}_{[l_t, r_t]}$ (line 15 in Algorithm~\ref{alg:single_item}) once we allocate time slots $[l_{t'}, r_{t'}]$ of resource $j^* \in \mathcal{P}$, we have $\bar{\mathbf{s}}^{j^*}_{t'+1} \le \mathbf{s}^{j^*}_{t'+1}$. For the other resources $\mathcal{M} \backslash \{ j^* \}$, resource statuses at the beginning of the next period remain unchanged, and our updates ensure that $\bar{\mathbf{s}}^j_{t'+1} \le \bar{\mathbf{s}}^j_{t'}$ for any $j \in \mathcal{M} \backslash \{ j^*\}$, so we have $\bar{\mathbf{s}}^j_{t'+1} \le \bar{\mathbf{s}}^j_{t'} \le \mathbf{s}^j_{t'} = \mathbf{s}^j_{t'+1}$, where the second inequality uses the induction assumption. Thus, $(i)$ in Property~\ref{property:virtual} holds for $t = t'+1$.
% \paragraph{On $(ii)$.} To verify $(ii)$ in Property~\ref{property:virtual}, we consider each resource $j \in \mathcal{M}$, respectively.
% Note that conditioned on a value of $\bar{\mathbf{s}}^j_{t'}$ and that $[a,b] \supseteq [l_{t'}, r_{t'}]$ is a maximal sequence in $\bar{\mathbf{s}}^j_{t'}$, regardless of the proposal from any other resource, the resource $j$ will submit a proposal with a probability of $\frac{y^j_{t'}([a,b])}{x^j_{t'}([a,b])\cdot p_{t'}}$ and update with $\bar{\mathbf{s}}^j_{t'+1} = \bar{\mathbf{s}}^j_{t'} - \mathbf{1}_{[l_{t'},r_{t'}]}$ with a probability of $p_{t'}$ conditioned on submitting the proposal.
% Thus, for any $1 \le a \le b \le N$ such that $[l_{t'}, r_{t'}] \subseteq [a,b]$, we have
% \begin{align}
% \label{eq:include_transit}
% \begin{split}
% & \Pr\{ [a,b] \sim \bar{\mathbf{s}}^j_{t'} \text{ and } \bar{\mathbf{s}}^j_{t'+1} = \bar{\mathbf{s}}^j_{t'} - \mathbf{1}_{[l_{t'},r_{t'}]} \} = \Pr \{ [a,b] \sim \bar{\mathbf{s}}^j_{t'+1}\} \cdot \Pr \{\bar{\mathbf{s}}^j_{t'+1} = \bar{\mathbf{s}}^j_{t'} - \mathbf{1}_{[l_{t'},r_{t'}]} | [a,b] \sim \bar{\mathbf{s}}^j_{t'+1} \}
% \} \\
% & \ =x^j_{t'}([a,b]) \cdot
% \frac{y^j_{t'}([a,b])}{x^j_{t'}([a,b])\cdot p_{t'}} \cdot p_{t'} ~=~ y^j_{t'}([a,b]).
% \end{split}
% \end{align}
% This equation implies that if $[a,b] \supseteq [l_{t'}, r_{t'}]$, then $\Pr\{[a,b] \sim \bar{\mathbf{s}}^j_{t'} \text{ and } [a,b] \sim \bar{\mathbf{s}}^j_{t'+1} \} = \Pr\{ [a,b] \sim \bar{\mathbf{s}}^j_{t'} \text{ and } \bar{\mathbf{s}}^j_{t'+1} = \bar{\mathbf{s}}^j_{t'} \} = x^j_{t'}([a,b]) - y^j_{t'}([a,b])$. Indeed, even if $[a,b] \nsupseteq [l_{t'}, r_{t'}]$, we still have $\Pr\{[a,b] \sim \bar{\mathbf{s}}^j_{t'} \text{ and } [a,b] \sim \bar{\mathbf{s}}^j_{t'+1} \} = x^j_{t'}([a,b]) - y^j_{t'}([a,b])$ because $y^j_{t'}([a,b])=0$ and the allocation of time slots $[l_{t'},r_{t'}]$ will not affect that $[a,b]$ is a maximal sequence in this case. Hence, we get the following equation
% \begin{align}
% \label{eq:not_transit}
% \Pr\{[a,b] \sim \bar{\mathbf{s}}^j_{t'} \text{ and } [a,b] \sim \bar{\mathbf{s}}^j_{t'+1} \} = x^j_{t'}([a,b]) - y^j_{t'}([a,b]),
% \end{align}
% for any $1 \le a \le b \le N$.
% In addition, combining the fact that $y^j_{t'}([a,b]) = 0$ if $[a,b] \nsupseteq [l_{t'}, r_{t'}]$ and Equation~\eqref{eq:include_transit}, we have
% \begin{align}
% \label{eq:transit}
% \mathbbm{1}\{ [l_{t'}, r_{t'}] \subseteq [a',b']\} \Pr \{ [a',b'] \sim \bar{\mathbf{s}}^j_{t'} \text{ and }
% \bar{\mathbf{s}}^j_{t'+1} = \bar{\mathbf{s}}^j_{t'} - \mathbf{1}_{[l_{t'},r_{t'}]} = y^j_{t'}([a', b']).
% \end{align}
% Combining \eqref{eq:not_transit} and \eqref{eq:transit}, we get that for any $1 \le a \le b \le N$,
% \begin{align*}
% \Pr\{ [a,b] \sim \bar{\mathbf{s}}^j_{t'+1} \} =& \Pr\{[a,b] \sim \bar{\mathbf{s}}^j_{t'} \text{ and } [a,b] \sim \bar{\mathbf{s}}^j_{t'+1} \} \\
% & + \sum_{\substack{1 \le a' \le b' \le N \\ [a', l_{t'}-1] = [a,b] \text{ or } [r_{t'}+1, b'] = [a, b]}} \mathbbm{1}\{ [l_{t'}, r_{t'}] \subseteq [a',b']\} \Pr \{ [a',b'] \sim \bar{\mathbf{s}}^j_{t'} \text{ and }
% \bar{\mathbf{s}}^j_{t'+1} = \bar{\mathbf{s}}^j_{t'} - \mathbf{1}_{[l_{t'},r_{t'}]}
% \} \\
% =& x^j_{t'}([a,b]) - y^j_{t'}([a,b]) + \sum_{\substack{1 \le a' \le b' \le N \\ [a', l_{t'}-1] = [a,b] \text{ or } [r_{t'}+1, b'] = [a, b]}} y^j_{t'}([a', b'])
% ~=~ x^j_{t'+1}([a,b])
% \end{align*}
% \paragraph{On $(iii)$.} We note that at the inductive step, we assume that $\{ \bar{\mathbf{s}}^j_t\}_{t \le t', j \in \mathcal{M}}$ are independent across resources $j \in \mathcal{M}$ and aim at proving that $\{ \bar{\mathbf{s}}^j_t\}_{t \le t'+1, \in \mathcal{M}}$ are also independent across resources. Because each resource submits a proposal independently at the proposal stage and we update the virtual resource statuses of resources in the proposal set independently at the allocation stage, the transition of virtual resource status of each resource only depends on its current virtual resource status and is independent of that of other resources. Thus, $\{ \bar{\mathbf{s}}^j_t\}_{t \le t'+1, j \in \mathcal{M}}$ are still independent across resources.
% \hfill \Halmos
%\paragraph{Approximation ratio.}
We show that Algorithm~\ref{alg:single_item} achieves a \((1 - 1/e)\)-approximation guarantee.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:1 - 1/e}
The reject-or-accept scenario admits a \((1 - 1/e)\)-approximation policy with Algorithm~\ref{alg:single_item}.
\end{theorem}
At a high level, our approach uses the solution to the fluid relaxation as a guide. Each resource independently submits a proposal with a probability derived from this solution, and the algorithm selects the proposal with the highest revenue for allocation.
The only source of potential revenue loss from the fluid upper bound arises from the constraint that at most one resource can be allocated per request. However, since the total proposal probability is bounded, this loss can be controlled.
\proof{Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:1 - 1/e}.}
Let \( X_{tj} = \mathbbm{1}\{ j \in \mathcal{P} \} \) indicate whether resource \( j \in \mathcal{M} \) submits a proposal at period \( t \), and \( Y_t = \mathbbm{1}\{ \text{request } t \text{ arrives} \} \). The total expected revenue under our policy is:
$$
V^\pi(\mathcal{I}) = \sum_{t \in \mathcal{T}} \mathbb{E}[R_t], \quad \text{where} \quad R_t \triangleq Y_t \cdot \max_{j \in \mathcal{M}} \{ X_{tj} w_{tj} \}.
$$
We proceed to provide a lower bound of \( \mathbb{E}[R_t] \).
By Property~\ref{property:virtual}(ii) and the definition of proposal probabilities, we have:
the proposal probability for resource $j$ at period $t$ is:
\begin{align}
\label{eq:proposal_prob}
\Pr[X_{tj} = 1] = \sum_{[a,b] \supseteq [l_t,r_t]} x^j_t([a,b]) \cdot \frac{y^j_t([a,b])}{x^j_t([a,b])\cdot p_t}
= \sum_{[a,b] \supseteq [l_t, r_t]} \frac{y^j_t([a,b])}{p_t}
= \frac{1}{p_t} \sum_{1\le a \le b \le N} y^j_t([a,b]),
\end{align}
where the first equality follows from line 4 in Algorithm~\ref{alg:single_item} and Property~\ref{property:virtual}(ii), and the last equality holds because the summation is extended over all intervals \( [a,b] \) such that $1\le a \le b \le N$, with additional terms contributing zero by constraint \eqref{eq:no_allocate}.
By Constraint~\eqref{eq:across_single} of the linear program, the total proposal probability at period $t$ satisfies:
$$
\sum_{j \in \mathcal{M}} \Pr[X_{tj} = 1] \le 1.
$$
Now let $j^{(1)}, \ldots, j^{(M)}$ denote the indices of resources sorted in descending order of their potential revenue $w_{tj}$. Since the algorithm always chooses the highest-revenue proposal, we can write:
\begin{align}
\label{eq:transform_expected_maximum}
\mathbb{E}[R_t]
= p_t \cdot \mathbb{E}\left[ \max_j \{ X_{tj} w_{tj} \} \right]
= p_t \sum_{i=1}^M w_{t j^{(i)}} \Pr[X_{t j^{(i)}} = 1] \prod_{k=1}^{i-1}(1 - \Pr[X_{t j^{(k)}} = 1]).
\end{align}
This expression accounts for the fact that resource $j^{(i)}$ can only be selected if none of the higher-revenue resources $j^{(1)}, \ldots, j^{(i-1)}$ submit proposals.
We now apply a classical inequality from \cite{fleischer2011tight}, which provides a bound on such weighted maxima under independent inclusion:
\begin{lemma}[{\sc Lemma 2.1 in \citealt{fleischer2011tight}}]
\label{lemma:folklore_inequality}
If \( f_1 \ge \cdots \ge f_M \ge 0 \), $Y_i \ge 0$, and \( \sum_{i=1}^M Y_i \le 1 \), then:
\[
f_1 Y_1 + f_2 (1 - Y_1) Y_2 + \cdots + f_M \prod_{i=1}^{M-1}(1 - Y_i) Y_M
\ge \left(1 - \left(1 - \frac{1}{M} \right)^M \right) \sum_{i=1}^M f_i Y_i.
\]
\end{lemma}
Applying Lemma~\ref{lemma:folklore_inequality} to Equation~\eqref{eq:transform_expected_maximum}, we obtain:
\[
\mathbb{E}[R_t]
\ge p_t \left(1 - \left(1 - \frac{1}{M} \right)^M \right) \sum_{j \in \mathcal{M}} w_{tj} \Pr[X_{tj} = 1]
\ge \left(1 - \frac{1}{e} \right) \sum_{j \in \mathcal{M}} \sum_{a,b} w_{tj} y^j_t([a,b]),
\]
where the last inequality follows from the fact that \( 1 - (1 - 1/M)^M \ge 1 - 1/e \) for any \( M \ge 1 \) and uses Equation~\eqref{eq:proposal_prob}.
Summing over all periods, we conclude:
\[
V^\pi(\mathcal{I}) = \sum_{t \in \mathcal{T}} \mathbb{E}[R_t]
\ge \left(1 - \frac{1}{e} \right) \sum_{t,j,a,b} w_{tj} y^j_t([a,b])
= \left(1 - \frac{1}{e} \right) \texttt{LP}(\mathcal{I}) \ge (1-\frac{1}{e}) \overline{V}({\mathcal{I}}),
\]
where the second equality follows from the fact that $(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{y})$ is the optimal solution to \eqref{eq:lp_single}, and the last inequality is due to Lemma \ref{lemma:upper}. \hfill \Halmos
% Now, we are ready to derive the approximation ratio for our policy. Let $X_{tj} \triangleq \mathbbm{1}\{ j \in \mathcal{P} \text{ at period } t \}$ be the binary indicator of whether resource $j \in \mathcal{M}$ submits a proposal or not at period $t \in \mathcal{T}$ and $Y_t \triangleq \mathbbm{1}\{ \text{request } t \text{ arrives} \}$ be the binary indicator of whether request $t \in \mathcal{T}$ arrives. Then, by the allocation stage in Algorithm~\ref{alg:single_item}, where we pick the resource among $\mathcal{P}$ with the highest revenue for allocation, the revenue generated at period $t \in \mathcal{T}$ by this policy is denoted by
% \begin{align}
% R_t \triangleq Y_{t} \max_{j \in \mathcal{M}}\{ X_{tj} w_{tj}\},
% \end{align}
% and thus $V^{\pi}(\mathcal{I}) = \sum_{t \in \mathcal{T}}\mathbb{E}[R_t]$.
% Next, we lower bound $\mathbb{E}[R_t]$ for each period $t \in \mathcal{T}$. Fix a $t \in \mathcal{T}$. By $(ii)$ in Property~\ref{property:virtual}, We know that for any resource $j \in \mathcal{M}$, the ex-ante probability of submitting a proposal is
% \begin{align}
% \label{eq:propsoal_prob}
% & \Pr[X_{tj} = 1] = \sum_{\substack{1 \le a \le b \le N: \\ [l_t,r_t] \subseteq [a,b]}} \Pr\{ [a,b] \sim \bar{s}^j_t\} \cdot \frac{y^j_t([a,b])}{x^j_t([a,b])\cdot p_t} = \sum_{\substack{1 \le a \le b \le N: \\ [l_t,r_t] \subseteq [a,b]}} x^j_t([a,b]) \cdot \frac{y^j_t([a,b])}{x^j_t([a,b])\cdot p_t} \notag \\
% &\ = \Bigl(\sum_{\substack{1 \le a \le b \le N: \\ [l_t,r_t] \subseteq [a,b]}} y^j_t([a,b]) \Bigr)/p_t = \Bigl(\sum_{1 \le a \le b \le N} y^j_t([a,b]) \Bigr)/p_t,
% \end{align}
% where the second inequality follows from $(ii)$ in Property~\ref{property:virtual} and last inequality uses Constraint \eqref{eq:no_allocate}.
% Thus, by Constraint \eqref{eq:across_single}, we have
% \begin{align}
% \label{eq:sum_less_than_one}
% \sum_{j \in \mathcal{M}} \Pr[X_{tj} = 1] = \sum_{j \in \mathcal{M}} \Bigl(\sum_{\substack{1 \le a \le b \le N}} y^j_t([a,b]) \Bigr)/p_t \le 1.
% \end{align}
% We also utilize a folklore inequality as follows:
% \begin{lemma}[Lemma 2.1 in \cite{fleischer2011tight}]
% \label{lemma:folklore_inequality}
% $f_1 Y_1 + f_2 (1-Y_1) Y_2 + \cdots + f_l(\Pi_{i=1}^{l-1}(1-Y_i))Y_l \ge (1-(1-1/l)^l)\sum_{1\le i \le l} f_i Y_i$ whenever $Y_i \ge 0$ for all $i$ and $\sum_{i} Y_i \le 1$ and $f_1 \ge f_2 \ge \cdots \ge f_l \ge 0$.
% \end{lemma}
% Let $j^{(i)}$ be resource with the $i$th largest revenue among $\{ w_{tj} \}_{j \in \mathcal{M}}$. Then, we have
% \begin{align}
% & \mathbb{E}[R_t] = p_t \mathbb{E}[\max_{j \in \mathcal{M}}\{ X_{tj} w_{tj}\}] = p_t \sum_{i = 1}^M w_{tj^{(i)}} \Pr[X_{tj^{(i)}} = 1, X_{tj^{(1)}} = 0, \dots, X_{tj^{(i-1)}} = 0] \notag \\
% & \ = p_t \sum_{i = 1}^M w_{tj^{(i)}} \Pr[X_{tj^{(i)}} = 1] \Pi_{k = 1}^{i-1}(1 - \Pr[X_{tj^{(k)}} = 1]) \notag \\
% & \ \ge p_t (1-(1-1/M)^M)\sum_{j \in \mathcal{M}} w_{tj} \Pr[X_{tj} = 1] \ge (1-\frac{1}{e}) \sum_{j \in \mathcal{M}} \sum_{1 \le a \le b \le N} w_{tj} y^j_t([a,b]),
% \end{align}
% where the first equality uses the fact that request $t$'s arrival is independent of the proposal set $\mathcal{P}$, the third equality uses the fact that $\{X_{tj} \}_{j \in \mathcal{M}}$ are independent, which follows from the fact that the virtual statuses are independent across resources (cf. $(iii)$ in Property~\ref{property:virtual}) and submitting a proposal are also independent across resources (in the proposal stage), the first inequality uses Lemma~\ref{lemma:folklore_inequality} and \eqref{eq:sum_less_than_one}, and the second inequality follows from \eqref{eq:propsoal_prob} and the fact that $1-(1-1/M)^M \ge 1-\frac{1}{e}$ for any positive integer $M$.
% Hence, we conclude that
% \begin{align*}
% V^{\pi}(\mathcal{I}) = \sum_{t \in \mathcal{T}}\mathbb{E}[R_t] \ge (1-\frac{1}{e}) \sum_{t \in \mathcal{T}} \sum_{j \in \mathcal{M}} \sum_{1 \le a \le b \le N} w_{tj} y^j_t([a,b]) = (1-\frac{1}{e}) \texttt{LP}(\mathcal{I}),
% \end{align*}
% which immediately yields the following result:
% \begin{theorem}
% The reject-or-accept scenario admits a $(1-\frac{1}{e})$-approximation policy (Algorithm \ref{alg:single_item}).
% \end{theorem}
\section{Choice-Based Scenario}
\label{sec:assortment}
In this section, we present a
$0.125$-approximation policy for the choice-based scenario. This policy builds on Algorithm~\ref{alg:single_item} for the reject-or-accept setting by continuing to utilize virtual resource statuses. Unlike the previous case, however, the decision-maker must now offer an assortment of available resources, from which the customer selects according to a choice model. To handle this added complexity, we incorporate new techniques that maintain probabilistic independence across resources while enabling effective assortment offerings.
\subsubsection*{Sales-Based Fluid Relaxation.}
We adopt the sales-based linear programming (SBLP) framework of \cite{gallego2015general}, which captures customer choice behavior under the basic attraction model without explicitly enumerating all feasible assortments. For any policy, we define the following decision variables:
(i) $x^j_t([a,b])$: the probability that $[a,b]$ is a maximal sequence of resource $j$ at the beginning of period $t$;
(ii) $y^j_t([a,b])$: the joint probability that resource $j$ is selected by customer $t$ (implying that $j$ is in the offered assortment), and $[a,b] \supseteq [l_t,r_t]$ is a maximal sequence of $j$;
(iii) $y^{j0}_t([a,b])$: the joint probability that resource $j$ is included in the assortment, customer $t$ chooses the outside option, and $[a,b] \supseteq [l_t,r_t]$ is the maximal sequence of $j$;
(iv) $y^0_t$: the probability that customer $t$ arrives and chooses the outside option (aggregated over all assortments).
The SBLP formulation is given as:
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
\label{eq:sblp}
\tag{SBLP}
\max_{\mathbf{x} \ge \mathbf{0}, \mathbf{y} \ge \mathbf{0}} \quad& \sum_{j \in \mathcal{M}} \sum_{t \in \mathcal{T}} \sum_{1 \le a \le b \le N} w_{tj} y^j_t([a,b]) \\
\tag{Online}
\label{eq:allocate_assortment}
\text{ s.t.} \qquad&
y^{j0}_t([a,b]) + y^j_t([a, b]) \le x^j_t([a,b]) \cdot p_t, && \forall j \in \mathcal{M}, t \in \mathcal{T}, 1 \le a \le b \le N \\
\tag{Feasibility}
\label{eq:no_allocate_assortment}
\quad& y^{j0}_t([a,b]) + y^j_t([a, b]) \le \mathbbm{1}\{[l_t, r_t] \subseteq [a,b], v_{tj} > 0 \}, && \forall j \in \mathcal{M}, t \in \mathcal{T}, 1 \le a \le b \le N \\
\quad& x^j_t([a,b]) = x^j_{t-1}([a,b]) \quad\quad - \quad \quad y^j_{t-1}([a,b]) && +
\sum_{ r_{t-1} \le b' \le N} \mathbbm{1}\{ b+1 = l_{t-1} \}y^j_{t-1}([a, b']) \notag
\\
\label{eq:balance}
\tag{Balance}
& \qquad\qquad + \sum_{1 \le a' \le l_{t-1} } \mathbbm{1}\{ r_{t-1} = a-1 \} y^j_{t-1}([a',b]), && \forall j \in \mathcal{M}, 2 \le t \le T, 1 \le a \le b \le N \\
\tag{Boundary}
\label{eq:boundary_assortment}
\quad& x^j_1([a,b]) = \mathbbm{1}\{ [a,b]=[1,N]\}, && \forall j \in \mathcal{M}, 1 \le a \le b \le N \\
\tag{Capacity}
\label{eq:capacity}
\quad& y^0_t + \sum_{j \in \mathcal{M}}\sum_{1 \le a \le b \le N} y^j_t([a,b]) = p_t, && \forall t \in \mathcal{T} \\
&
\tag{Scale}
\label{eq:scale}
v_{t0}y^j_t([a,b]) = v_{tj}y^{j0}_t([a,b]), && \forall j \in \mathcal{M}, t \in \mathcal{T}, 1 \le a \le b \le N\\
\tag{Opt-out}
\label{eq:no_purchase}
\quad& \sum_{1 \le a \le b \le N} y^{j0}_t([a,b]) \le y^0_t, && \forall j \in \mathcal{M}, t \in \mathcal{T}.
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
We now provide explanations for each constraint. Constraint
\eqref{eq:allocate_assortment} bounds the joint probability that customer $t$ sees resource $j$ and
$[a,b]$ is its maximal available sequence, by the multiplication of the availability probability and the customer arrival probability.
Constraint \eqref{eq:no_allocate_assortment} excludes infeasible allocations where the interval is not contained in the maximal sequence or the resource has zero attractiveness.
Equations \eqref{eq:balance} and \eqref{eq:boundary_assortment} track the evolution of maximal sequences and initialize full availability, respectively.
Equation \eqref{eq:capacity} ensures the total probability of selection (including the outside option) equals the arrival probability.
Equation \eqref{eq:scale} enforces proportional choice under the basic attraction model.
Constraint \eqref{eq:no_purchase} says that the aggregated probability of choosing the outside outcome with resource $j$ being offered cannot exceed the total non-selection probability.
Finally, the optimal value of this LP (denoted by $\texttt{SBLP}(\mathcal{I})$) provides an upper bound of the expected revenue of any online policy (a straightforward proof is provided in Appendix~\ref{sec:appendix_assortment}):
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:upper_assortment}
For any instance $\mathcal{I}$ of the choice-based scenario,
\(
\overline{V}(\mathcal{I}) \le \emph{\texttt{SBLP}}(\mathcal{I}).
\)
\end{lemma}
% This lemma highlights that our proposed LP formulation provides a tight fluid relaxation, bounding the achievable revenue of any implementable online assortment allocation policy.
% We leverage the ideas from \cite{gallego2015general} for computing the fluid relaxation, which avoids the use of exponential variables in the fluid relaxation to represent assortments when incorporating the basic attraction model. Specifically, let variable $x^j_t({[a,b]})$ denote the ex-ante probability that $[a,b]$ is a maximal sequence of resource $j \in \mathcal{M}$ at the beginning of period $t \in \mathcal{T}$, and variable $y^j_t([a,b])$ be the ex-ante probability that $[a,b]$ is a maximal sequence of resource $j \in \mathcal{M}$ at the beginning of period $t \in \mathcal{T}$, $[a,b]$ contains $[l_t,r_t]$, customer $t$ arrives, resource $j$ is in the offered assortment, and customer $t$ chooses $j$.
% In addition, $y^{j0}_t([a,b])$ denotes the ex-ante probability that $[a,b]$ is a maximal sequence of resource $j \in \mathcal{M}$ at the beginning of period $t \in \mathcal{T}$, $[a,b]$ contains $[l_t,r_t]$, customer $t$ arrives, resource $j$ is in the offered assortment, while customer $t$ chooses the no-purchase option. Finally, $y^0_t$ denotes the ex-ante probability that customer $t \in \mathcal{T}$ arrives and chooses the no-purchase option.
% Then, the sales-based fluid relaxation is presented as follows:
% \begin{subequations}
% \begin{align}
% \label{eq:sblp}
% \tag{SBLP}
% \max_{\mathbf{x} \ge \mathbf{0}, \mathbf{y} \ge \mathbf{0}} \quad& \sum_{j \in \mathcal{M}} \sum_{t \in \mathcal{T}} \sum_{1 \le a \le b \le N} w_{tj} y^j_t([a,b]) \\
% \tag{Scale}
% \label{eq:scale}
% \text{ s.t.} \qquad&
% v_{t0}y^j_t([a,b]) = v_{tj}y^{j0}_t([a,b]), && \forall j \in \mathcal{M}, t \in \mathcal{T}, 1 \le a \le b \le N\\
% \tag{Online}
% \label{eq:allocate_assortment}
% \quad& y^{j0}_t([a,b]) + y^j_t([a, b]) \le x^j_t([a,b]) \cdot p_t, && \forall j \in \mathcal{M}, t \in \mathcal{T}, 1 \le a \le b \le N \\
% \tag{Feasibility}
% \label{eq:no_allocate_assortment}
% \quad& y^{j0}_t([a,b]) + y^j_t([a, b]) \le \mathbbm{1}\{[l_t, r_t] \subseteq [a,b], v_{tj} > 0 \}, && \forall j \in \mathcal{M}, t \in \mathcal{T}, 1 \le a \le b \le N \\
% \quad& x^j_t([a,b]) = x^j_{t-1}([a,b]) \quad\quad - \quad \quad y^j_{t-1}([a,b]) && +
% \sum_{ r_{t-1} \le b' \le N} \mathbbm{1}\{ b+1 = l_{t-1} \}y^j_{t-1}([a, b']) \notag
% \\
% \label{eq:balance}
% \tag{Balance}
% & \qquad\qquad + \sum_{1 \le a' \le l_{t-1} } \mathbbm{1}\{ r_{t-1} = a-1 \} y^j_{t-1}([a',b]), && \forall j \in \mathcal{M}, 2 \le t \le T, 1 \le a \le b \le N \\
% \tag{Boundary}
% \label{eq:boundary_assortment}
% \quad& x^j_1([a,b]) = \mathbbm{1}\{ [a,b]=[1,N]\}, && \forall j \in \mathcal{M}, 1 \le a \le b \le N \\
% \tag{No-purchase}
% \label{eq:no_purchase}
% \quad& \sum_{1 \le a \le b \le N} y^{j0}_t([a,b]) \le y^0_t, && \forall j \in \mathcal{M}, t \in \mathcal{T}\\
% \tag{Capacity}
% \label{eq:capacity}
% \quad& y^0_t + \sum_{j \in \mathcal{M}}\sum_{1 \le a \le b \le N} y^j_t([a,b]) = p_t, && \forall t \in \mathcal{T}.
% \end{align}
% \end{subequations}
% The optimal objective value of \eqref{eq:sblp} is denoted by $\texttt{SBLP}(\mathcal{I})$.
% Constraint \eqref{eq:scale} reflects the relationship between the demand for a product and the demand for the no-purchase option, independent of other products in the assortment, under the MNL choice model for customer $t$.
% Constraint \eqref{eq:allocate_assortment} is similar to \eqref{eq:allocate_single}, but it also incorporates the no-purchase probability of the customer.
% Constraints \eqref{eq:no_allocate_assortment} and \eqref{eq:no_allocate_assortment_2} restrict $y^j_t([a,b])$ and $y^{j0}_t([a,b])$ to be zero if $[l_t,r_t] \nsubseteq [a,b]$ or $v_{tj} = 0$.
% The balance equation \eqref{eq:balance} and the boundary condition \eqref{eq:boundary_assortment} are the same as \eqref{eq:trans_single} and \eqref{eq:boundary_single} for the reject-or-accept scenario.
% Constraint \eqref{eq:no_purchase} says that the sum of no-purchase probabilities over different maximal sequences for each resource should be no more than the total no-purchase probability. Equation \eqref{eq:capacity} ensures that the customer's total choice probabilities are equal to the arrival probability. Then, \eqref{eq:sblp} provides an upper bound on the performance of the optimal policy as follows:
% \begin{lemma}
% \label{lemma:upper_assortment}
% For any instance $\mathcal{I}$ of the choice-based scenario, we have $\overline{V}(\mathcal{I}) \le \emph{\texttt{SBLP}}(\mathcal{I})$.
% \end{lemma}
\subsubsection*{Algorithm Design.}
Our policy for the choice-based scenario also builds on the concept of virtual resource status, but introduces additional complexity to preserve probabilistic independence when offering assortments. Let $\mathbf{s}^j_t$ and $\bar{\mathbf{s}}^j_t$ denote the actual and virtual availability statuses, respectively, of resource $j \in \mathcal{M}$ at the beginning of period $t \in \mathcal{T}$. Again, the policy proceeds in two stages: the proposal stage and the assortment recommendation stage.
\paragraph{Proposal stage.}
Similar to Algorithm~\ref{alg:single_item}, at the beginning of period $t \in \mathcal{T}$, each resource $j \in \mathcal{M}$ independently submits a proposal with probability $\frac{y^{j0}_t([a,b]) + y^j_t([a,b])}{x^j_t([a,b]) \cdot p_t}$, where $[a,b] \supseteq [l_t, r_t]$ is the maximal sequence in the virtual resource status $\bar{\mathbf{s}}^j_t$. This indicates a willingness to be included in the assortment, regardless of whether the customer arrives. If no such interval $[a,b]$ exists in $\bar{\mathbf{s}}^j_t$, resource $j$ does not submit a proposal.
\paragraph{Assortment recommendation stage.}
Let $\mathcal{P}$ denote the set of resources that submitted proposals. From $\mathcal{P}$, the algorithm independently selects each resource with probability $\gamma = 1/4$ to form a candidate assortment $\mathcal{S}$, which will be offered if customer $t$ arrives.
To update the virtual resource status, we randomly generate a subset of resources $\mathcal{Q}$, where the virtual status of each resource $j \in \mathcal{Q}$ is updated as $\bar{\mathbf{s}}^j_{t+1} \gets \bar{\mathbf{s}}^j_t - \mathbf{1}_{[l_t, r_t]}$. For the remaining resources in $\mathcal{M} \setminus \mathcal{Q}$, the virtual status is carried forward unchanged.
To maintain Property~\ref{property:virtual}, the set $\mathcal{Q}$ is determined using the sampling function $\textsc{Random}(\mathbf{q}, \mathbf{q}', \tilde{j})$, which randomly selects a subset of $\mathcal{M}$. Here, $\mathbf{q}, \mathbf{q}' \in [0,1]^M$ are probability vectors, and $\tilde{j} \in \mathcal{M}$ denotes a resource or the outside option. The choice of $\mathbf{q}$, $\mathbf{q}'$, and $\tilde{j}$ will be detailed later. The function $\textsc{Random}$ is implemented via a Markov chain coupling procedure, presented in Appendix~\ref{subsec:random}, and summarized as follows.
\begin{proposition}
\label{prop:random}
\begin{itemize}
\item[$(i)$] {\sc [Complexity]} $\emph{\textsc{Random}}(\mathbf{q}, \mathbf{q}', \tilde{j})$ runs in $O(M)$ time.
\item[$(ii)$] {\sc [Inclusion]} If $\tilde{j} \in \mathcal{M}$, then $\tilde{j} \in \emph{\textsc{Random}}(\mathbf{q}, \mathbf{q}', \tilde{j})$ almost surely.
\item[$(iii)$] {\sc [Independence]} Fix any vectors $\mathbf{q}, \mathbf{q}', \in [0,1]^M$ such that $\sum_{j \in \mathcal{M}} q'_j \le 1$ and
\begin{align}
\label{eq:regular_condtion}
\frac{q'_j}{ 1 - \sum_{j' = j+1}^M q'_{j'} } \le q_j, \quad \forall j \in \mathcal{M}.
\end{align}
Suppose the input of index $\tilde{j}$ is random with the distribution $P$ that is defined by $\mathbf{q'}$
\begin{align}
\label{eq:distribution}
P(j) \triangleq \begin{cases}
q'_j , &\text{ \emph{if} } j \in \mathcal{M} \\
1 - \sum_{j \in \mathcal{M}} q'_j, & \text{ \emph{if} } j = 0.
\end{cases}
\end{align}
Then, conditioned on $\mathbf{q}$ and $\mathbf{q}'$, the random output of $\emph{\textsc{Random}}(\mathbf{q}, \mathbf{q}', \tilde{j})$ has the following distribution:
\begin{align}
{\Pr}_{\tilde{j} \sim P }\Big[ \emph{\textsc{Random}}(\mathbf{q}, \mathbf{q}',\tilde{j}) =\mathcal{X} \Big| \mathbf{q}, \mathbf{q}' \Big] = \prod_{j \in \mathcal{X}} q_j \prod_{j \in \mathcal{M}\backslash \mathcal{X}} (1-q_j), \qquad \forall \ \mathcal{X} \subseteq \mathcal{M}.
\end{align}
\end{itemize}
\end{proposition}
In our policy, to generate the set $\mathcal{Q}$ of resources with the virtual resource status to be updated, given the proposal set $\mathcal{P}$ and the candidate assortment $\mathcal{S}$, we specify $\mathbf{q}$ and $\mathbf{q}'$ as follows:
\begin{align}
\label{eq:q}
\mathbf{q} = [q_j]_{j \in \mathcal{M}}, & \text{ where } q_j = \mathbbm{1}\{ j \in \mathcal{P}\} \cdot p_t \cdot \frac{v_{tj}}{v_{t0} + v_{tj}}, \\
\label{eq:q'}
\mathbf{q}' = [q'_j]_{j \in \mathcal{M}}, & \text{ where } q'_j = \mathbbm{1}\{ j \in \mathcal{S} \} \cdot p_t \cdot \frac{v_{tj}}{v_{t0} + \sum_{j' \in \mathcal{S}}v_{tj'}}.
\end{align}
Let $j^*$ denote the customer $t$'s choice or be the outside option $0$ if customer $t$ does not arrive. Then, we set $\mathcal{Q}$ as ${\textsc{Random}}(\mathbf{q}, \mathbf{q}', j^*)$. It is easy to verify that the distribution of $j^*$ follows the distribution $P$ defined by $\mathbf{q}'$ given a candidate assortment $\mathcal{S}$.
Our policy is presented in Algorithm~\ref{alg:assortment_based}.
\begin{algorithm}
\caption{$0.125$-Approximation Policy for the Choice-Based Scenario}
\label{alg:assortment_based}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\REQUIRE Instance $\mathcal{I} \triangleq \{\mathcal{M}, \mathcal{N}, \{ \theta_t\}_{t \in \mathcal{T}} \}$ and a control parameter $\gamma = \frac{1}{4}$.
\STATE Initialize $\bar{\mathbf{s}}^j_1 \gets \mathbf{1}_{[1,N]}$ for all $j \in \mathcal{M}$. Let $(\mathbf{x}, \mathbf{y})$ be the optimal solution to \eqref{eq:sblp}.
\FOR{each period $t \in \mathcal{T}$}
\STATE \textbf{Proposal Stage:} Initialize $\mathcal{P} \gets \emptyset$.
\COMMENT{Before the realization of request $t$'s arrival}
\begin{ALC@g}
\STATE \textbf{for} each $j \in \mathcal{M}$ with $[a,b] \sim \bar{\mathbf{s}}^j_t$ s.t. $[l_t, r_t] \subseteq [a,b]$ \textbf{do}: Add $j$ to $\mathcal{P}$ w.p. $\frac{y^{j0}_t([a,b]) + y^j_t([a,b])}{x^j_t([a,b])\cdot p_t}$ independently.
\end{ALC@g}
\STATE \textbf{Assortment Recommendation Stage:} Initialize $\bar{\mathbf{s}}^j_{t+1} \gets \bar{\mathbf{s}}^j_t$ for all $j \in \mathcal{M}$ and $\mathcal{S} \gets \emptyset$.
\begin{ALC@g}
\STATE \textbf{for} each $j \in \mathcal{P}$ \textbf{do}: Add $j$ into $\mathcal{S}$ w.p. $\gamma$ independently.
\STATE \textbf{if} customer $t$ arrives \textbf{then}: Offer $\mathcal{S}$ and let $j^*$ denote her choice; \textbf{else}: $j^* \gets 0$.
\STATE $\mathcal{Q} \leftarrow \textsc{Random}(\mathbf{q}, \mathbf{q}', j^*)$ with $\mathbf{q}$ and $\mathbf{q}'$ defined by \eqref{eq:q} and \eqref{eq:q'}, respectively.
\STATE \textbf{for} each $j \in \mathcal{Q}$ \textbf{do}: $\bar{\mathbf{s}}^j_{t+1} \gets \bar{\mathbf{s}}^j_t - \mathbf{1}_{[l_t, r_t]}$.
\end{ALC@g}
\ENDFOR
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
We verify that our constructed virtual resource statuses indeed satisfy Property~\ref{property:virtual}.
\begin{proposition}
\label{prop:virtual_property_assortment}
The virtual resource statuses $\{ \bar{\mathbf{s}}^j_t \}_{j \in \mathcal{M}, t \in \mathcal{T}}$ generated by Algorithm~\ref{alg:assortment_based} satisfy Property~\ref{property:virtual}. Moreover, for each period $t \in \mathcal{T}$, the candidate assortment $\mathcal{S}$ is feasible to offer, in the sense that $\mathcal{S} \subseteq \{ j \in \mathcal{M} \mid \mathbf{1}_{[l_t, r_t]} \le \mathbf{s}^j_t \}$.
\end{proposition}
\proof{Proof of Proposition \ref{prop:virtual_property_assortment}.}
We prove the result by induction on $t$.
\textbf{Base case ($t = 1$):}
By initialization, the real and virtual resource statuses are identical: $\bar{\mathbf{s}}^j_1 = \mathbf{s}^j_1 = \mathbf{1}_{[1,N]}$ for all $j \in \mathcal{M}$. The only maximal sequence is $[1, N]$, hence $\Pr\{ [a, b] \sim \bar{\mathbf{s}}^j_1 \} = x^j_1([a, b]) = \mathbbm{1}\{[a, b] = [1, N]\}$. As the statuses are deterministic, independence across resources is trivially satisfied. Moreover, since all resources are initially available, the candidate assortment is feasible.
\textbf{Inductive step}:
Assume Property~\ref{property:virtual} and the feasibility of candidate assortments hold for all periods up to $t'$. We show they also hold for period $t'+1$.
Let $j^*$ denote the realized selection at period $t'$ or the outside option if customer $t'$ does not arrive. We verify the following:
(i) Lower Bound:
For any $j \neq j^*$, we have
$
\bar{\mathbf{s}}^j_{t'+1} \le \bar{\mathbf{s}}^j_{t'} \le \mathbf{s}^j_{t'} = \mathbf{s}^j_{t'+1}.
$
For resource $j^*$ that the customer selects, then by the Inclusion property of Proposition~\ref{prop:random}, $j^* \in \mathcal{Q}$, and thus:
$
\bar{\mathbf{s}}^{j^*}_{t'+1} = \bar{\mathbf{s}}^{j^*}_{t'} - \mathbf{1}_{[l_{t'}, r_{t'}]} \le \mathbf{s}^{j^*}_{t'} - \mathbf{1}_{[l_{t'}, r_{t'}]} = \mathbf{s}^{j^*}_{t'+1}.
$
(ii) Feasibility of $\mathcal{S}$ at period $t'+1$:
In period $t'+1$, the candidate assortment $\mathcal{S}$ is formed as a subset of $\mathcal{P}$, the set of resources that submit proposals. If $j \in \mathcal{P}$, then there exists a maximal sequence $[a,b] \sim \bar{\mathbf{s}}^j_{t'+1}$ such that $[l_{t'+1}, r_{t'+1}] \subseteq [a,b]$. Since $\bar{\mathbf{s}}^j_{t'+1} \le \mathbf{s}^j_{t'+1}$, the feasibility follows.
(iii) Independence:
Given the proposal set $\mathcal{P}$ and the candidate assortment $\mathcal{S}$, the update set $\mathcal{Q}$ is generated as $\textsc{Random}(\mathbf{q}, \mathbf{q}', j^*)$, where $j^* \sim P$, and $P$ is defined by $\mathbf{q}'$:
$
\Pr\{ j^* = j \} = q'_j, \ \forall j \in \mathcal{M}.
$
To verify that $\mathbf{q}$ and $\mathbf{q}'$ satisfy the condition \eqref{eq:regular_condtion}, observe that for all $j \in \mathcal{M}$,
$$
\frac{q'_j}{1 - \sum_{j'=j+1}^M q'_{j'}}
= \frac{\mathbbm{1}\{ j \in \mathcal{S} \} p_t v_{tj}}{v_{t0} + \sum_{j' \in \mathcal{S}} v_{tj'} - \sum_{j'=j+1}^M \mathbbm{1}\{ j' \in \mathcal{S} \} p_t v_{tj'}}
\le \mathbbm{1}\{ j \in \mathcal{S} \} \cdot \frac{p_t v_{tj}}{v_{t0} + v_{tj}}
\le q_j.
$$
Above, the first equality follows from \eqref{eq:q'}. The first inequality holds trivially if $j \notin \mathcal{S}$; and if $j \in \mathcal{S}$, it holds because the denominator on the right-hand side is greater than that of the left-hand side. The last inequality uses the fact that $\mathcal{S} \subseteq \mathcal{P}$.
Hence, by Proposition~\ref{prop:random}, the output set $\mathcal{Q}$ includes each resource independently with probability $q_j$, conditioned on $\mathcal{P}$ and $\mathcal{S}$.
Moreover, since the inclusion of resource $j$ in $\mathcal{P}$ and $\mathcal{S}$, as well as the value of $q_j$, are all independent of other resources, the independence of the virtual resource statuses is preserved.
(iv) Marginal Probability:
Conditioned on $[a, b] \sim \bar{\mathbf{s}}^j_{t'}$ with $[l_{t'}, r_{t'}] \subseteq [a, b]$, the probability that the virtual status of resource $j$ is updated as:
$$
\frac{y^{j0}_{t'}([a, b]) + y^j_{t'}([a, b])}{x^j_{t'}([a, b]) \cdot p_{t'}} \cdot p_{t'} \cdot \frac{v_{t'j}}{v_{t'0} + v_{t'j}} = \frac{y^j_{t'}([a, b])}{x^j_{t'}([a, b])},
$$
where the equality follows from Constraint~\eqref{eq:scale}. Together with Equation~\eqref{eq:balance}, this confirms the correct marginal distribution at period $t'+1$.
\hfill \Halmos
\subsubsection*{Performance Analysis.}
The reject-or-accept scenario encompasses a special case known as the online Bayesian bipartite matching problem, or the ride-hail problem, studied in \cite{papadimitriou2021online}, which has been shown to be PSPACE-hard to approximate within a certain constant factor strictly less than one. Therefore, designing a constant-factor approximation algorithm is likely the best achievable goal for both the reject-or-accept and choice-based scenarios.
Now we establish the performance guarantee for Algorithm~\ref{alg:assortment_based}.
%We establish the policy performance guarantee by first verifying Property~\ref{property:virtual}, and then showing that the policy $\pi$ described in Algorithm~\ref{alg:assortment_based} satisfies
%$
%\frac{V^{\pi}(\mathcal{I})}{\texttt{SBLP}(\mathcal{I})} \ge 0.125.
%$
% \subsubsection*{Performance Analysis.}
% We establish the performance guarantee by first proving Property~\ref{property:virtual}, and then showing that $\frac{V^{\pi}(\mathcal{I})}{\texttt{SBLP}(\mathcal{I})} \ge 0.125$, where $\pi$ is the policy described in Algorithm~\ref{alg:assortment_based} throughout this subsection, based on the proven property.
% \begin{proposition}
% \label{prop:virtual_property_assortment}
% The offered assortment $\mathcal{S}$ at each period $t \in \mathcal{T}$ is feasible in the sense that $\mathcal{S} \subseteq \{ j \in \mathcal{M}| \mathbf{1}_{[l_t,r_t]} \le \mathbf{s}^j_t \}$, and the virtual resource statuses $\{\bar{\mathbf{s}}^j_t \}_{j \in \mathcal{M}, t \in \mathcal{T}}$ described in Algorithm~\ref{alg:assortment_based} satisfy Property~\ref{property:virtual}.
% \end{proposition}
% \proof{Proof of Proposition~\ref{prop:virtual_property_assortment}}
% The proof is by induction. Start with the base case $t = 1$, where the virtual resource status and real resource status are identical at the beginning of period $t=1$, i.e., $\bar{\mathbf{s}}^j_1 = \mathbf{s}^j_1 = \mathbf{1}_{[1,N]}$ for any resource $j \in \mathcal{M}$, and the marginal probabilities satisfy $\Pr\{ [a,b] \sim \bar{\mathbf{s}}^j_1 \} = x^j_1([a,b]) = \mathbbm{1}\{ [a,b] = [1,N] \}$. Furthermore, since $\{ \bar{\mathbf{s}}^j_1\}_{j \in \mathcal{M}}$ are deterministic, they are naturally independent across different resources.
% Obviously, any assortment offered at period $t=1$ is feasible since all resources are available.
% Next, fixing any $1 \le t' \le T-1$, we assume the inductive hypothesis that the lower bound $(i)$ and marginal probability $(ii)$ conditions in Property~\ref{property:virtual} hold for $t \le t'$, $\{\bar{\mathbf{s}}^j_{t} \}_{j \in \mathcal{M}, t \le t'}$ are independent across resources, and the assortment offered at period $t'$ is feasible. Then, we have $\bar{\mathbf{s}}^j_{t'+1} \le \mathbf{s}^j_{t'+1}$ for any resource $j \in \mathcal{M}$ because, $\bar{\mathbf{s}}^j_{t'+1} \le \bar{\mathbf{s}}^j_{t'} \le \mathbf{s}^j_{t'} = \mathbf{s}^j_{t'+1}$ for $j \ne j^*$ and $\bar{\mathbf{s}}^{j^*}_{t'+1} = \bar{\mathbf{s}}^{j^*}_{t'} - \mathbf{1}_{[l_{t'},r_{t'}]}\le \mathbf{s}^{j^*}_{t'} - \mathbf{1}_{[l_{t'},r_{t'}]} = \mathbf{s}^{j^*}_{t'+1}$ if customer $t'$ chooses some resource $j^* \in \mathcal{M}$, where the first equality follows from $j^* \in \mathcal{Q}$ using the inclusion $(ii)$ in Proposition \ref{prop:random}.
% Also, the offered assortment $\mathcal{S}$ at period $t'+1$ is feasible because, in our policy, $\mathcal{S}$ is a subset of the proposal set $\mathcal{P}$ at period $t'+1$ and any resource $j \in \mathcal{P}$ has a certain maximal sequence $[a,b] \sim \bar{\mathbf{s}}^j_{t'+1}$ such that $[a,b] \supseteq [l_{t'+1},r_{t'+1}]$, and $\bar{\mathbf{s}}^j_{t'+1} \le \mathbf{s}^j_{t'+1}$.
% To establish the marginal probability $(ii)$ and independence $(iii)$ properties up to period $t'+1$, we recall that at the assortment recommendation stage at period $t'$, $j^*$ denotes the customer choice if she arrives or $0$ if not and virtual resource is updated for resources $\mathcal{Q} = \textsc{Random}(\mathbf{q}, \mathbf{q}', j^*)$, where $\mathbf{q}$ and $\mathbf{q'}$ are defined in \eqref{eq:q} and \eqref{eq:q'} by taking $t = t'$. Note that given the assortment $\mathcal{S}$ at period $t'$, by combining the arrival probability and choice probabilities of customer $t'$, we know that $j^*$ follows the distribution \(\Pr\{j^* = j \}= q'_j \ \forall j \in \mathcal{M}\). Also, since $\mathcal{S} \in \mathcal{P}$, then $\mathbf{q}$ and $\mathbf{q'}$ will satisfy \eqref{eq:regular_condtion} as follows: for any $j \in \mathcal{M}$,
% \begin{align}
% \frac{q'_j}{ 1 - \sum_{j' = j+1}^M q'_{j'} } = \frac{\mathbbm{1}\{ j \in \mathcal{S} \} p_t v_{tj} }{ v_{t0} + \sum_{j' \in \mathcal{S}} v_{tj'} - \sum_{j'=j+1}^M \mathbbm{1}\{ j \in \mathcal{S}\}p_t v_{tj'} } \le \frac{\mathbbm{1}\{ j \in \mathcal{S} \} p_t v_{tj} }{ v_{t0} + v_{tj} } \le q_j.
% \end{align}
% Thus, by independence $(iii)$ in Proposition~\ref{prop:random}, the distribution of $\mathcal{Q}$ follows a simple process where each resource $j$ is included in $\mathcal{Q}$ independently with probability $q_j$. Since the events ${ j \in \mathcal{P} }$ are also independent across $j \in \mathcal{M}$, we know $\{ \bar{\mathbf{s}}^j_t \}_{t\le t'+1}$ are also independent across resources. In addition, when resource $j$ is with $[l_{t'},r_{t'}] \subseteq [a,b] \sim \bar{\mathbf{s}}^j_{t'}$, we know the virtual resource is updated (i.e., $\bar{\mathbf{s}}^j_{t'+1} = \bar{\mathbf{s}}^j_{t'}- \mathbf{1}_{[l_{t'},r_{t'}]}$ ) with probability \[\frac{y^{j0}_{t'}([a,b]) + y^j_{t'}([a,b])}{x^j_{t'}([a,b])\cdot p_{t'}} \cdot p_{t'} \cdot \frac{v_{t'j}}{v_{t'0}+v_{t'j}} = \frac{y^j_{t'}([a,b])}{x^j_{t'}([a,b])}, \]
% where the equality uses \eqref{eq:scale}. Combining with \eqref{eq:balance}, we can establish the marginal probability for period $t'+1$.
% \hfill \Halmos
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:1/8}
The choice-based scenario under MNL models admits a $0.125$-approximation policy with Algorithm~\ref{alg:assortment_based}.
\end{theorem}
\proof{Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:1/8}.}
Now we establish the approximation ratio by showing that the revenue generated at each period $t \in \mathcal{T}$ for each resource $j \in \mathcal{M}$ by our policy is at least a constant factor of $ \sum_{1 \le a \le b \le N} w_{tj} y^j_t([a,b])$, given the optimal solution $(\mathbf{x,y})$ to \eqref{eq:sblp}.
We proceed in two steps. First, we compute preliminary probabilities about our policy based on $(\mathbf{x}, \mathbf{y})$. Second,
we derive a lower bound on the conditional choice probability
given that resource $j$ is included in the candidate assortment $\mathcal{S}$. This step leverages the independence across resources, a partitioning of resources into those with large and small attractiveness, and the use of the control parameter $\gamma=1/4$.
\paragraph{{Preliminaries.}}
Let $X_{tj} \triangleq \mathbbm{1}\{j \in \mathcal{P} \text{ at period } t\}$ be the indicator for whether resource $j \in \mathcal{M}$ submits a proposal at period $t \in \mathcal{T}$. Since $y^j_t([a,b]) = y^{j0}_t([a,b]) = 0$ for any resource $j$ with $v_{tj} = 0$ (by Constraint~\eqref{eq:no_allocate_assortment}), we restrict attention to the set
$
\mathcal{M}_t \triangleq \{ j \in \mathcal{M} \mid v_{tj} > 0 \}
$
at period $t$.
For any $j \in \mathcal{M}_t$, the probability of submitting a proposal is:
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
& \Pr\{ X_{tj} = 1\} = \sum_{1\le a \le b \le N: [a,b] \supseteq [l_t,r_t]}\Pr\{ [a,b] \sim \bar{\mathbf{s}}^j_t \text{ and } j \in \mathcal{P} \text{ at period } t\} \\
& \ = \sum_{1\le a \le b \le N:[a,b]\supseteq[l_t,r_t]} x^j_t([a,b]) \cdot \frac{y^{j0}_t([a,b]) + y^j_t([a,b])}{x^j_t([a,b])\cdot p_t} = \frac{\sum_{1 \le a \le b \le N} y^j_t([a,b])}{p_t} \cdot \frac{v_{t0} + v_{tj}}{ v_{tj}},
\end{split}
\end{align}
where the second equality uses the marginal property of virtual resource status (Property~\ref{property:virtual}) and line 4 in Algorithm~\ref{alg:assortment_based}, and the third equality follows from Constraint~\eqref{eq:scale} and by extending the summation so that it is over all intervals $[a,b]$ with $1\le a \le b \le N$, where the additional terms contribute zero due to Constraint~\eqref{eq:no_allocate_assortment}.
Next, fix any period $t \in \mathcal{T}$ and any resource $\bar{j} \in \mathcal{M}_t$. Let $j^*$ denote the resource selected by customer $t$, if any. We now express the probability that resource $\bar{j}$ is selected at period $t$ as:
\begin{align}
\label{eq:bound_chioce_prob}
\begin{split}
\Pr \{ j^* = \bar{j} \} &= p_t \cdot \Pr\{ \bar{j} \in \mathcal{S} \} \cdot \mathbb{E}\left[\frac{v_{t\bar{j}}}{v_{t0} + \sum_{j \in \mathcal{S}} v_{tj}} \,\middle|\, \bar{j} \in \mathcal{S} \right] \\
&= \gamma \left( \sum_{1 \le a \le b \le N} y^{\bar{j}}_t([a,b]) \right) \cdot \frac{v_{t0} + v_{t\bar{j}}}{v_{t\bar{j}}} \cdot \mathbb{E}\left[\frac{v_{t\bar{j}}}{v_{t0} + \sum_{j \in \mathcal{S}} v_{tj}} \,\middle|\, \bar{j} \in \mathcal{S} \right],
\end{split}
\end{align}
where the first equality follows from the independence of customer arrivals, inclusion of $\bar{j}$ in the candidate assortment, and the choice-based decision. The second equality substitutes the expression of $\Pr\{\bar{j} \in \mathcal{S}\}$ by:
\begin{align}
\label{eq:prob_in_assort}
\Pr\{j \in \mathcal{S} \} = \Pr\{ X_{tj} = 1 \} \cdot \Pr\{ j \in \mathcal{S} \mid X_{tj} = 1 \} = \frac{\sum_{1 \le a \le b \le N} y^j_t([a,b])}{p_t} \cdot \frac{v_{t0} + v_{tj}}{v_{tj}} \cdot \gamma, \quad \forall j \in \mathcal{M}_t.
\end{align}
Therefore, to lower bound $\Pr \{ j^* = \bar{j} \}$, it suffices to analyze the conditional expectation
$
\mathbb{E}\left[\frac{v_{t\bar{j}}}{v_{t0} + \sum_{j \in \mathcal{S}} v_{tj}} \,\middle|\, \bar{j} \in \mathcal{S} \right],
$
which represents the customer $t$’s probability of choosing resource $\bar{j}$, conditioned on its inclusion in the offered assortment and her arrival. This is the focus of the next step in our analysis.
% Next, fix any period $t \in \mathcal{T}$ and any resource $\bar{j} \in \mathcal{M}_t$. We still use $j^*$ to denote the customer $t$'s choice. Then, we can express the choice probability of resource $\bar{j}$ at period $t$ as follows:
% \begin{align}
% \label{eq:bound_chioce_prob}
% \begin{split}
% & \Pr \{ j^* = \bar{j}\} = p_t \cdot \Pr\{ \bar{j} \in \mathcal{S} \} \cdot \mathbb{E}[\frac{v_{t\bar{j}}}{v_{t0} + \sum_{j \in \mathcal{S}}v_{tj}}|\bar{j} \in \mathcal{S}] \\
% & \ = \gamma \Bigl(\sum_{1 \le a \le b \le N}y^{\bar{j}}_t([a,b]) \Bigr) \cdot \frac{v_{t0} + v_{t\bar{j}}}{ v_{t\bar{j}}} \cdot \mathbb{E}[\frac{v_{t\bar{j}}}{v_{t0} + \sum_{j \in \mathcal{S}}v_{tj}}|\bar{j} \in \mathcal{S}],
% \end{split}
% \end{align}
% where the first equality uses the fact that the customer chooses resource $\bar{j}$ if and only if she arrives, resource $\bar{j}$ is in the offered assortment $\mathcal{S}$, and the customer chooses resource $\bar{j}$ when seeing the assortment, and the second equality uses the following equation,
% \begin{align}
% \label{eq:prob_in_assort}
% \Pr\{j \in \mathcal{S} \} = \Pr \{ X_{tj} = 1\} \Pr \{ j \in \mathcal{S} | X_{tj} = 1\} = \frac{\sum_{1 \le a \le b \le N} y^j_t([a,b])}{p_t} \cdot \frac{v_{t0} + v_{tj}}{ v_{tj}} \cdot \gamma \quad \forall j \in \mathcal{M}_t.
% \end{align}
% Thus, to lower bound $\Pr \{j^* = \bar{j} \}$, we focus on bounding the conditional choice probability of $\bar{j}$, $\mathbb{E}[\frac{v_{t\bar{j}}}{v_{t0} + \sum_{j \in \mathcal{S}}v_{tj}}|\bar{j} \in \mathcal{S}]$, if customer $t$ arrives and $\bar{j} \in \mathcal{S}$.
\paragraph{{Bounding the conditional choice probability.}}
We begin by partitioning $\mathcal{M}_t$ based on resource attractiveness.
Let $\mathcal{M}^{\texttt{L}} \triangleq \{j \in \mathcal{M}_t| v_{tj} > v_{t0} \}$ and $\mathcal{M}^{\texttt{S}} \triangleq \{j \in \mathcal{M}_t| v_{tj} \le v_{t0} \}$ be a partition of $\mathcal{M}_t$ by the size of the attractiveness of a resource to the customer.
In addition, define
\[L \triangleq \Bigl(\sum_{j \in \mathcal{M}^{\texttt{L}}} \sum_{1\le a\le b \le N} y^j_t([a,b]) \Bigr)/p_t \text{ and } S \triangleq \Bigl(\sum_{j \in \mathcal{M}^{\texttt{S}}} \sum_{1\le a\le b \le N} y^j_t([a,b]) \Bigr) / p_t,
\]
which represent the scaled expected allocations to large and small-attractiveness resources, respectively.
We now bound the total inclusion probability and total expected attractiveness from these two groups:
\begin{align}
\label{eq:upper_bound_large}
\begin{split}
& \sum_{j \in \mathcal{M}^{\texttt{L}}} \Pr\{ j \in \mathcal{S} \} = \sum_{j \in \mathcal{M}^{\texttt{L}}} \frac{\sum_{1 \le a \le b \le N} y^j_t([a,b])}{p_t} \cdot \frac{v_{t0} + v_{tj}}{ v_{tj}} \cdot \gamma \le 2\gamma \sum_{j \in \mathcal{M}^{\texttt{L}}} \frac{\sum_{1 \le a \le b \le N} y^j_t([a,b])}{p_t} = 2\gamma L,
\end{split}
\end{align}
where the first equality is due to \eqref{eq:prob_in_assort} and the inequality uses the fact that $\frac{v_{t0}+v_{tj}}{v_{tj}} \le 2$ if $j \in \mathcal{M}^{\texttt{L}}$.
\begin{align}
\label{eq:upper_bound_small}
\begin{split}
\sum_{j \in \mathcal{M}^{\texttt{S}}} \Pr\{ j \in \mathcal{S} \} v_{tj} = \sum_{j \in \mathcal{M}^{\texttt{S}}} \frac{\sum_{1 \le a \le b \le N} y^j_t([a,b])}{p_t} \cdot (v_{t0} + v_{tj}) \cdot \gamma \le 2\gamma v_{t0} \sum_{j \in \mathcal{M}^{\texttt{S}}} \frac{\sum_{1 \le a \le b \le N} y^j_t([a,b])}{p_t} = 2\gamma v_{t0} S,
\end{split}
\end{align}
where the first equality follows from \eqref{eq:prob_in_assort} and the inequality follows from the fact that $v_{t0}+v_{tj} \le 2v_{t0}$ if $j \in \mathcal{M}^{\texttt{S}}$.
Then, we lower bound the conditional choice probability of resource $\bar{j}$ as follows:
\begin{align}
\label{eq:bound_conditional}
\begin{split}
& \mathbb{E} \Bigl[\frac{v_{t\bar{j}}}{v_{t0} + \sum_{j \in \mathcal{S}}v_{tj}} \, \Big|\, \bar{j} \in \mathcal{S} \Bigr] = \mathbb{E}\Bigl[\frac{v_{t\bar{j}}}{v_{t0} + v_{t\bar{j}} + \sum_{j \in \mathcal{S} \cap \mathcal{M}^{\texttt{L}}, j \ne \bar{j}}v_{tj} + \sum_{j \in \mathcal{S} \cap \mathcal{M}^{\texttt{S}}, j\ne \bar{j}}v_{tj}} \, \Big|\, \bar{j} \in \mathcal{S} \Bigr] \\
& \stackrel{(i)}{\ge} \mathbb{E} \Bigl[\frac{v_{t\bar{j}}}{v_{t0} + v_{t\bar{j}} + \sum_{j \in \mathcal{S} \cap \mathcal{M}^{\texttt{L}}, j \ne \bar{j}}v_{tj} + \sum_{j \in \mathcal{M}^{\texttt{S}}, j\ne \bar{j}} \Pr \{ j \in \mathcal{S} \} v_{tj}} \, \Big|\, \bar{j} \in \mathcal{S} \Bigr] \\
& \stackrel{(ii)}{\ge} (1 - 2\gamma L) \frac{v_{t\bar{j}}}{v_{t0} + v_{t\bar{j}} + \sum_{j \in \mathcal{M}^{\texttt{S}}, j\ne \bar{j}} \Pr \{ j \in \mathcal{S} \} v_{tj}} \stackrel{(iii)}{\ge} (1-2\gamma L) \frac{v_{t\bar{j}}}{v_{t0} + v_{t\bar{j}} + 2\gamma S v_{t0}} \stackrel{(iv)}{\ge} \frac{1-2\gamma L}{1+2\gamma S} \frac{v_{t\bar{j}}}{v_{t0} + v_{t\bar{j}}}.
\end{split}
\end{align}
In the above, step $(i)$ uses the convexity to obtain
$
\mathbb{E}[\frac{x'}{x'' + X}] \ge \frac{x'}{x''+\mathbb{E}[X]}
$ for any $x',x'' > 0$ and any nonnegative random variable $X$.
Step $(ii)$ uses the union bound as follows:
\begin{align*}
\Pr \Big\{ (\mathcal{S} \cap \mathcal{M}^{\texttt{L}}) \backslash \{ \bar{j}\} = \emptyset \, \Big|\, \bar{j} \in \mathcal{S} \Big\} = \Pr \Big\{ (\mathcal{S} \cap \mathcal{M}^{\texttt{L}}) \backslash \{ \bar{j}\} = \emptyset \Big\} \ge 1 - \sum_{j \in \mathcal{M}^{\texttt{L}}} \Pr \{ j \in \mathcal{S}\} \ge 1-2\gamma L,
\end{align*}
where the first equality follows from the independence of the events that each resource is included in the assortment $\mathcal{S}$, the first inequality follows directly from the union bound, and the last inequality uses \eqref{eq:upper_bound_large}.
Step $(iii)$ uses \eqref{eq:upper_bound_small} and the fact that $1 - 2\gamma L \ge 0$, which holds since $\gamma=1/4 \le 1/2$ and $L \le 1$ by \eqref{eq:capacity}.
Step $(iv)$ uses the fact that
$
v_{t0}+v_{t\bar{j}} + 2\gamma S v_{t0} \le v_{t0}+v_{t\bar{j}}+ 2\gamma S v_{t0} + 2\gamma S v_{t\bar{j}}= (1+2\gamma S)(v_{t0} + v_{t\bar{j}}).
$
Thus, combining \eqref{eq:bound_conditional} and \eqref{eq:bound_chioce_prob}, we immediately get
\begin{align*}
\Pr \{ j^* = \bar{j}\} \ge \gamma \frac{1-2\gamma L}{1+2\gamma S} \Bigl(\sum_{1 \le a \le b \le N}y^{\bar{j}}_t([a,b]) \Bigr).
\end{align*}
Since $L, S \ge 0$ and $L + S \le 1$ (by Constraint~\eqref{eq:capacity}), we have
$
\gamma \cdot \frac{1 - 2\gamma L}{1 + 2\gamma S}
\ge \gamma \cdot \frac{1 - 2\gamma (1 - S)}{1 + 2\gamma S}
= \gamma \cdot \frac{1 - 2\gamma + 2\gamma S}{1 + 2\gamma S}
\ge \gamma (1 - 2\gamma),
$
where the first inequality follows from $L\le 1-S$, and the last inequality holds since $0 \le \gamma = 1/4 \le 1/2$ and $S \ge 0$.
Thus, by taking the value of $\gamma$ as $1/4$, we immediately have $ \Pr \{ j^* = \bar{j}\} \ge 0.125 \sum_{1 \le a \le b \le N}y^{\bar{j}}_t([a,b]).$ Therefore, we conclude that
\(
V^\pi(\mathcal{I}) = \sum_{t \in \mathcal{T}, \bar{j} \in \mathcal{M}_t} \Pr[j^* = \bar{j} \text{ at period } t] w_{t\bar{j}} \ge 0.125 \sum_{t \in \mathcal{T}, \bar{j} \in \mathcal{M}_t} w_{t\bar{j}} \sum_{1\le a \le b \le N}y^{\bar{j}}_t([a,b]) = 0.125 \texttt{SBLP}(\mathcal{I}) \ge 0.125 \overline{V}({\mathcal{I}}),
\)
where the second equality holds since $(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{y})$ is the optimal solution to \eqref{eq:sblp}, and the last inequality is due to Lemma \ref{lemma:upper_assortment}.
\hfill \Halmos
% Our analysis leverages the control parameter $\gamma$ and an effective partitioning of resources based on their attractiveness. We believe further improvements may be possible through a more refined probabilistic analysis, more nuanced partitioning schemes, or the use of adaptive control parameters.
\section{Conclusion}
In this paper, we introduce a proposal-based algorithmic framework for the network revenue management problem with consecutive stays, and establish constant-factor approximation guarantees. For future work on algorithm design, pivot sampling \citep{braverman2025new, amanihamedani2024improved} presents a promising direction, owing to its favorable negative dependence properties, which have led to improved approximation ratios over independent proposals in related settings. Nevertheless, extending beyond independence in our model is nontrivial, as the resource status here exhibits greater structural complexity than the matched/unmatched dichotomy in classical matching problems to which pivot sampling is applied. Investigating such extensions remains a compelling direction for future research.
On the hardness side, whether a constant competitive ratio exists against the offline optimum remains an open question. We are inclined to believe that no such ratio is achievable, making the construction of hard instances to establish inapproximability an especially intriguing and worthwhile direction for further exploration.
% \subsubsection*{Open Questions}
% \begin{itemize}
% \item (Solved) How do we obtain a constant-factor policy for the problem in \cite{rusmevichientong2023revenue} that incorporates the choice model (like MNL, Markov chain or even any model)?
% \item Establish the result that it is impossible to achieve constant factor when comparing to offline optimum (upper bound on the prophet inequality).
% \end{itemize}
% \section{Extension ?}
% We consider a row with $N$ seats to allocate. In each period $t \in [T]$, a customer $t$ (referred to as ``she'') may arrive with a known type $\theta_t = (p_t, n_t, \{ (l_{t,1}, r_{t,1}), \dots (l_{t, n_t}, r_{t, n_t})\})$. Here, $p_t$ is the probability that the customer will arrive, $n_t$ is the number of acceptable options for the customer, and $(l_{t,i}, r_{t,i})$ indicates that the $i$-th option allocates seats from $l_{t,i}$ to $r_{t,i}$ for this customer. We can offer any option with available seats to the customer, and she will purchase the option at its price. Specifically, the price for each seat $j \in [N]$ is $v_j$ and thus the option of $(l_{t,i}, r_{t,i})$ is $\sum_{l_{t,i} \le j \le r_{t,i}} v_j$. Alternatively, we can choose to reject the customer.
\bibliographystyle{informs2014}
\bibliography{refs}
% \paragraph{blub}\label{para}
% abc paragraph \ref{para}
% \bibliographystyle{plain} % We choose the "plain" reference style
% \bibliography{refs} % Entries are in the refs.bib file
%% Here starts the e-companion (EC)
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\ECSwitch
%\ECDisclaimer
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%% Main head for the e-companion
\ECHead{\centering Online Appendix to ``Constant-Factor Algorithms for Revenue Management with Consecutive Stays''}
\section{Omitted Proofs in Section~\ref{sec:warm_up}}
\label{sec:proof_special_case}
\proof{Proof of Lemma~\ref{lemma:special_case}.}
Given an instance \(\mathcal{I}\) of the reject-or-accept scenario, we construct a corresponding instance \(\mathcal{I}'\) of the choice-based scenario by using the same parameters \( p_t, l_t, r_t \) and \(\{ w_{tj}\mid j \in \mathcal{M}\}\). The choice model \(\{v_{tj}\mid j \in \mathcal{M}^+\}\) for customer \(t\) is defined by setting \(v_{tj}=1\) for all \( j \in \mathcal{M}\) and \( v_{t0}=0 \). Because \( v_{t0}=0 \), the optimal policy for \(\mathcal{I}\) is also feasible for \(\mathcal{I}'\), as the customer's choice is deterministic when offered a single resource. Hence, \(\overline{V}(\mathcal{I}) \leq \overline{V}(\mathcal{I}')\). Furthermore, any \(\alpha\)-approximation policy for \(\mathcal{I}'\) can be transformed into an \(\alpha\)-approximation policy for \(\mathcal{I}\) by replacing each offered assortment \(\mathcal{S}\) with offering each resource in \(\mathcal{S}\) in equal chance. Thus, this policy is an $\alpha$-approximation policy for $\mathcal{I}$.
\hfill \Halmos
\section{Omitted Proofs in Section~\ref{sec:single_item}}
\label{subsec:proof_in_reject_or_accept}
\proof{Proof of Lemma~\ref{lemma:upper}.}
Given an instance $\mathcal{I}$ of the reject-or-accept scenario, let $\pi^* = \arg \max_{ \pi \in \Pi(\mathcal{I}) } V^{\pi}(\mathcal{I})$ be the optimal policy that maximizes the total expected revenue. Under the optimal policy $\pi^*$, let $\mathbf{s}^j_t$ denote the available status of resource $j \in \mathcal{M}$ at the beginning of period $t$, $\bar{x}^j_t([a,b])$ denote the probability that $[a,b]\sim \mathbf{s}^j_t$, and
\[ \bar{y}^j_t([a,b]) = \begin{cases}
\Pr \{ [a,b] \sim \mathbf{s}^j_t \text{ and } [l_t,r_t] \text{ is allocated to request } t \}, & \text{ if } [l_t,r_t] \subseteq [a,b], \\
0, & \text{ otherwise. }
\end{cases}\]
Next, we show $(\bar{\mathbf{x}}, \bar{\mathbf{y}})$ is a feasible solution to \eqref{eq:lp_single}.
Since request $t$'s arrival is independent of the initial resource status at the period $t$, we have $\bar{y}^j_t([a,b]) \le \bar{x}^j_t([a,b]) \cdot p_t$, satisfying Constraint \eqref{eq:allocate_single}.
By the definition of $(\bar{\mathbf{x}}, \bar{\mathbf{y}})$, they also satisfy Constraints \eqref{eq:no_allocate} and \eqref{eq:boundary_single}.
Constraint \eqref{eq:trans_single} is naturally satisfied because it accounts for the probability mass flow across periods. Constraint \eqref{eq:capacity} is satisfied since the customer arrival probability is $p_t$. Thus, the feasibility is established. Finally, since $V^{\pi^*}(\mathcal{I}) = \sum_{j \in \mathcal{M}} \sum_{t \in \mathcal{T}} \sum_{1 \le a \le b \le N} w_{tj} \bar{y}^j_t([a,b])$, we conclude that $\overline{V}(\mathcal{I}) = V^{\pi^*}(\mathcal{I}) \le \texttt{LP}(\mathcal{I})$. \Halmos
\section{Omitted Details in Section~\ref{sec:assortment}}
\label{sec:appendix_assortment}
\proof{Proof of Lemma~\ref{lemma:upper_assortment}.}
The proof is similar to the proof of Lemma \ref{lemma:upper} except additionally utilizing the property of the basic attraction model. Let $\pi^* = \arg \max_{ \pi \in \Pi(\mathcal{I}) } V^{\pi}(\mathcal{I})$ be the optimal policy given the instance $\mathcal{I}$. Under the optimal policy $\pi^*$, let $\mathbf{s}^j_t$ denote the available status of resource $j \in \mathcal{M}$ at the beginning of period $t$, $\bar{x}^j_t([a,b])$ denote the probability that $[a,b]\sim \mathbf{s}^j_t$,
\[ \bar{y}^j_t([a,b]) = \begin{cases}
\Pr \{ [a,b] \sim \mathbf{s}^j_t \text{ and customer } t \text{ chooses resource } j \}, & \text{ if } [l_t,r_t] \subseteq [a,b], \\
0, & \text{ otherwise. }
\end{cases}\]
and
\[ \bar{y}^{j0}_t([a,b]) = \begin{cases}
\Pr \{ [a,b] \sim \mathbf{s}^j_t \text{, resource } j \text{ is offered to customer } t \text{, and she chooses } 0 \}, & \text{ if } [l_t,r_t] \subseteq [a,b], \\
0, & \text{ otherwise. }
\end{cases}\]
Let $\bar{y}^0_t$ be the probability that customer $t$ arrives and chooses the outside option.
Next, we show $(\bar{\mathbf{x}}, \bar{\mathbf{y}})$ is a feasible solution to \eqref{eq:sblp}.
Constraint \eqref{eq:scale} is satisfied since each time interval \([a,b]\sim \bar{s}^j_t\) and resource \( j \) is offered to customer \( t \), the choice probabilities of resource \( j \) and the outside option follow the fixed ratio \(\frac{v_{tj}}{v_{t0}}\).
Since $\bar{y}^{j0}_t([a,b]) + \bar{y}^j_t([a,b])$ is no more than the probability that $[a,b] \sim \bar{s}^j_t$ and the resource $j$ is offered to customer $t$, Constraint \eqref{eq:allocate_assortment} holds. Constraints \eqref{eq:no_allocate_assortment}, \eqref{eq:balance} and \eqref{eq:boundary_assortment} naturally hold for any policy. Constraints \eqref{eq:no_purchase} and \eqref{eq:capacity} hold by the definitions of $\bar{y}^j_t(\cdot), \bar{y}^{j0}_t(\cdot) $ and $\bar{y}^0_t$.
\hfill \Halmos
\subsection{Details of \textsc{Random}($\mathbf{q}, \mathbf{q}', \tilde{j}$)}
\label{subsec:random}
The implementation of $\textsc{Random}(\mathbf{q}, \mathbf{q}', \tilde{j})$ is provided in Algorithm~\ref{alg:random}. The procedure processes the resources in $\mathcal{M}$ sequentially in the reverse order, from $M$ down to $1$. At each step $j$, the algorithm decides whether to include resource $j$ based on $\tilde{j}$ and a randomized decision rule governed by $\mathbf{q}$ and $\mathbf{q}'$. We next establish Proposition~\ref{prop:random}.
\begin{algorithm}
\caption{\textsc{Random}($\mathbf{q}, \mathbf{q}', \tilde{j}$)}
\label{alg:random}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\REQUIRE Probability vectors $\mathbf{q}, \mathbf{q}' \in [0,1]^M$, and a choice $\tilde{j}$.
\ENSURE $\mathcal{Q}$
\STATE Initialize $\mathcal{Q} \leftarrow \emptyset$.
\FOR{$j=M$ \textbf{donwto} $1$}
\STATE Let $z_j \gets \frac{q'_j}{1 - \sum_{j'=j+1}^M q'_{j'}}$.
\SWITCH {$j$}
\CASE {$ j > \tilde{j}$}
\STATE Add $j$ into $\mathcal{Q}$ with probability $ \max \{0, \min \{ 1,(q_j - z_j)/(1-z_j) \} \}$ independently.
\ENDCASE
\CASE {$j = \tilde{j}$}
\STATE Add $j$ into $\mathcal{Q}$.
\ENDCASE
\CASE {$j < \tilde{j}$}
\STATE Add $j$ into $\mathcal{Q}$ with probability $ q_j$ independently.
\ENDCASE
\ENDSWITCH
\ENDFOR
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\proof{Proof of Proposition~\ref{prop:random}.}
The time complexity of Algorithm~\ref{alg:random} is clearly \( O(M) \), as it consists of a single loop running \( M \) iterations. If \( \tilde{j} = j \in \mathcal{M} \), then resource \( j \) is included in \( \mathcal{Q} \) at iteration \( j \) (by line 8 of Algorithm~\ref{alg:random}).
Next, we focus on proving the independence. Suppose inputs \(\mathbf{q}, \mathbf{q}' \in [0,1]^M\) are fixed so that they satisfy inequality \eqref{eq:regular_condtion}, and the random input \(\tilde{j}\) follows the distribution \(P\) defined in \eqref{eq:distribution}. \(\mathcal{Q}\) denotes the random output set.
To show that each resource \(j \in \mathcal{M}\) is included independently in \(\mathcal{Q}\) with probability \(q_j\), the central idea involves coupling the distribution of \(\tilde{j}\) with a backward indexed Markov chain process \(\{Z_j\}_{j=M,\dots,1}\), where the realization of \(Z_j\) is determined directly by \(\tilde{j}\) via \(Z_j = \mathbbm{1}[\tilde{j} \ge j]\). Based on the distribution of \(\tilde{j}\) defined in \eqref{eq:distribution}, the transition probabilities of this Markov chain can be explicitly computed as:
\begin{align}
\label{eq:markov_prob}
\begin{split}
& z_j \coloneqq \frac{q'_j}{1 - \sum_{j' = j+1}^M q'_{j'}} \quad \forall\, 1 \le j \le M, \\
& \Pr\{Z_M = 1\} = z_M, \quad \Pr\{Z_M = 0\} = 1 - z_M, \\
& \Pr\{Z_j = 1 \mid Z_{j+1} = 0\} = z_j, \quad \Pr\{Z_j = 0 \mid Z_{j+1} = 0\} = 1 - z_j, \quad \forall\, 1 \le j \le M-1, \\
& \Pr\{Z_j = a \mid Z_{j+1} = 1\} = \mathbbm{1}\{a = 1 \}, \quad \forall\, 1 \le j \le M-1,\, a \in \{0,1\}.
\end{split}
\end{align}
Indeed, we can directly infer the value of \(\tilde{j}\) from the realization of the Markov chain \(\{Z_j\}_{j=1,\dots,M}\). Thus, our algorithm can be thought of as coupling \(\mathcal{Q}\) with the Markov chain \(\{Z_j\}_{j=1,\dots,M}\). Specifically, given fixed inputs \((\mathbf{q}, \mathbf{q}')\), we sequentially realize the Markov chain from \(Z_M\) to \(Z_1\).
Alongside this realization, our algorithm determines sequentially, for each resource \(j \in \mathcal{M}\), whether it should be included in \(\mathcal{Q}\). Suppose we are currently at resource \(j \in \mathcal{M}\):
\begin{itemize}
\item If \(j < M\) and \(Z_{j+1} = 1\), it implies \(\tilde{j} > j\) and thus \(Z_j = 1\); in this case, we include resource \(j\) in \(\mathcal{Q}\) with probability \(q_j\) (corresponding to line 10 in Algorithm~\ref{alg:random}).
\item Otherwise, the conditional probability that \(Z_j = 1\) is exactly \(z_j\) (as given by \eqref{eq:markov_prob}). We then couple the inclusion of \(j\) in \(\mathcal{Q}\) with \(Z_j\): if \(Z_j = 1\), we include \(j\) in \(\mathcal{Q}\) (corresponding to line 8 in Algorithm~\ref{alg:random}); if \(Z_j = 0\), we include resource \(j\) in \(\mathcal{Q}\) with probability \((q_j - z_j)/(1 - z_j)\) (corresponding to line 6 in Algorithm~\ref{alg:random}). Note that \((q_j - z_j)/(1 - z_j)\) lies within the interval \([0,1]\) since $z_j \le q_j \le 1$ if \(\mathbf{q}\) and \(\mathbf{q}'\) satisfy \eqref{eq:regular_condtion} and $\mathbf{q} \in [0,1]^M$. It is straightforward to verify that, in this case, the probability of including resource \(j\) is also \(q_j\).
\end{itemize}
From the above explanation, we know that if vectors \( \mathbf{q}, \mathbf{q}' \in [0,1]^M \) satisfy condition \eqref{eq:regular_condtion} and the random input \( \tilde{j} \) follows distribution \( P \) defined in \eqref{eq:distribution}, the conditional probability of including resource \( j \) into \( \mathcal{Q} \) at each step is:
\begin{align*}
\Pr\left[ j \in \mathcal{Q} \,\middle|\, \{ Z_{j'} \}_{j'=j+1}^M,\, \mathcal{Q} \cap \{j+1,\dots,M\} \right] = q_j,
\end{align*}
which implies that $\Pr[ j \in \mathcal{Q} | \mathcal{Q} \cap \{j+1,\dots,M\} ] = q_j$.
Therefore, for any $\mathcal{X} \subseteq \mathcal{M}$,
\begin{align*}
& {\Pr}_{\tilde{j} \sim P }\Big[ \mathcal{Q}
= \mathcal{X} \Big| \mathbf{q}, \mathbf{q}' \Big] \\
&\ = \prod_{j=1}^M \mathbbm{1}[j \in \mathcal{X}] \Pr[j \in \mathcal{Q} | \mathcal{Q} \cap \{j+1,\dots,M\} = \mathcal{X} \cap \{j+1,\dots,M \} ] \\
& \quad + \mathbbm{1}[j \notin \mathcal{X}] \Pr[j \notin \mathcal{Q} | \mathcal{Q} \cap \{j+1,\dots,M\} = \mathcal{X} \cap \{j+1,\dots,M \} ] \\
& = \prod_{j=1}^M \mathbbm{1}[j \in \mathcal{X}] q_j + \mathbbm{1}[j \notin \mathcal{X}] (1-q_j) \\
& = \prod_{j \in \mathcal{X}} q_j \prod_{j \in \mathcal{M}\backslash \mathcal{X}} (1-q_j). \qquad \Halmos
\end{align*}
\end{document}
\begin{thebibliography}{30}
\providecommand{\natexlab}[1]{#1}
\providecommand{\url}[1]{\texttt{#1}}
\providecommand{\urlprefix}{URL }
\bibitem[{Adelman(2007)}]{adelman2007dynamic}
Adelman D (2007) Dynamic bid prices in revenue management. \emph{Oper. Res.}
55(4):647--661.
\bibitem[{AmaniHamedani et~al.(2024)AmaniHamedani, Aouad, Pollner,
\protect\BIBand{} Saberi}]{amanihamedani2024improved}
AmaniHamedani A, Aouad A, Pollner T, Saberi A (2024) Improved approximations
for stationary bipartite matching: Beyond probabilistic independence.
\emph{arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.08218} .
\bibitem[{Aouad \protect\BIBand{} Sar\i{}ta\c{c}(2022)}]{aouad2020dynamic}
Aouad A, Sar\i{}ta\c{c} O (2022) Dynamic stochastic matching under limited
time. \emph{Oper. Res.} 70(4):2349--2383.
\bibitem[{Baek \protect\BIBand{} Ma(2022)}]{baek2022bifurcating}
Baek J, Ma W (2022) Bifurcating constraints to improve approximation ratios for
network revenue management with reusable resources. \emph{Oper. Res.}
70(4):2226--2236.
\bibitem[{Bertsimas \protect\BIBand{} Popescu(2003)}]{bertsimas2003revenue}
Bertsimas D, Popescu I (2003) Revenue management in a dynamic network
environment. \emph{Transp. Sci.} 37(3):257--277.
\bibitem[{Braverman et~al.(2022)Braverman, Derakhshan, \protect\BIBand{}
Molina~Lovett}]{braverman2022max}
Braverman M, Derakhshan M, Molina~Lovett A (2022) Max-weight online stochastic
matching: Improved approximations against the online benchmark. \emph{Proc.
23rd ACM Conf. Econ. Comput.}, 967--985.
\bibitem[{Braverman et~al.(2025)Braverman, Derakhshan, Pollner, Saberi,
\protect\BIBand{} Wajc}]{braverman2025new}
Braverman M, Derakhshan M, Pollner T, Saberi A, Wajc D (2025) New philosopher
inequalities for online {B}ayesian matching, via pivotal sampling.
\emph{Proc. 2025 ACM-SIAM Symp. Discrete Algorithms (SODA)}, 3029--3068
(SIAM).
\bibitem[{Bumpensanti \protect\BIBand{} Wang(2020)}]{bumpensanti2020re}
Bumpensanti P, Wang H (2020) A re-solving heuristic with uniformly bounded loss
for network revenue management. \emph{Manage. Sci.} 66(7):2993--3009.
\bibitem[{Fleischer et~al.(2011)Fleischer, Goemans, Mirrokni, \protect\BIBand{}
Sviridenko}]{fleischer2011tight}
Fleischer L, Goemans MX, Mirrokni VS, Sviridenko M (2011) Tight approximation
algorithms for maximum separable assignment problems. \emph{Math. Oper. Res.}
36(3):416--431.
\bibitem[{Gallego et~al.(2015)Gallego, Ratliff, \protect\BIBand{}
Shebalov}]{gallego2015general}
Gallego G, Ratliff R, Shebalov S (2015) A general attraction model and
sales-based linear program for network revenue management under customer
choice. \emph{Oper. Res.} 63(1):212--232.
\bibitem[{Gallego \protect\BIBand{} Topaloglu(2019)}]{gallego2019revenue}
Gallego G, Topaloglu H (2019) \emph{Revenue {M}anagement and {P}ricing
{A}nalytics}, volume 209 (Springer).
\bibitem[{Gallego \protect\BIBand{} Van~Ryzin(1997)}]{gallego1997multiproduct}
Gallego G, Van~Ryzin G (1997) A multiproduct dynamic pricing problem and its
applications to network yield management. \emph{Oper. Res.} 45(1):24--41.
\bibitem[{{GlobeNewswire}(2025)}]{globenewswire2025railroads}
{GlobeNewswire} (2025) Railroads industry report 2025: High-speed rail and
electrification trends drive railroads market growth, projected to hit
\$781.2 billion by 2030. Accessed: 2025-04-03.
\bibitem[{Jasin \protect\BIBand{} Kumar(2012)}]{jasin2012re}
Jasin S, Kumar S (2012) A re-solving heuristic with bounded revenue loss for
network revenue management with customer choice. \emph{Math. Oper. Res.}
37(2):313--345.
\bibitem[{Jasin \protect\BIBand{} Kumar(2013)}]{jasin2013analysis}
Jasin S, Kumar S (2013) Analysis of deterministic {LP}-based booking limit and
bid price controls for revenue management. \emph{Oper. Res.}
61(6):1312--1320.
\bibitem[{Karp et~al.(1990)Karp, Vazirani, \protect\BIBand{}
Vazirani}]{karp1990optimal}
Karp RM, Vazirani UV, Vazirani VV (1990) An optimal algorithm for on-line
bipartite matching. \emph{Proc. 22nd ACM Symp. Theory Comput. (STOC)},
352--358.
\bibitem[{Kessel et~al.(2022)Kessel, Shameli, Saberi, \protect\BIBand{}
Wajc}]{kessel2022stationary}
Kessel K, Shameli A, Saberi A, Wajc D (2022) The stationary prophet inequality
problem. \emph{Proc. 23rd ACM Conf. Econ. Comput.}, 243--244.
\bibitem[{Luce(1959)}]{luce1959individual}
Luce RD (1959) \emph{Individual Choice Behavior}, volume~4 (Wiley New York).
\bibitem[{Ma(2024)}]{ma2024randomized}
Ma W (2024) Randomized rounding approaches to online allocation, sequencing,
and matching. \emph{Tutorials in Oper. Res.: Smarter Decisions for a Better
World}, 90--116 (INFORMS).
\bibitem[{Ma et~al.(2024)Ma, MacRury, \protect\BIBand{} Zhang}]{ma2024online}
Ma W, MacRury C, Zhang J (2024) Online contention resolution schemes for
network revenue management and combinatorial auctions. \emph{arXiv preprint
arXiv:2403.05378} .
\bibitem[{Ma et~al.(2020)Ma, Rusmevichientong, Sumida, \protect\BIBand{}
Topaloglu}]{ma2020approximation}
Ma Y, Rusmevichientong P, Sumida M, Topaloglu H (2020) An approximation
algorithm for network revenue management under nonstationary arrivals.
\emph{Oper. Res.} 68(3):834--855.
\bibitem[{Mehta et~al.(2013)}]{mehta2013online}
Mehta A, et~al. (2013) Online matching and ad allocation. \emph{Found. Trends
Theor. Comput. Sci.} 8(4):265--368.
\bibitem[{Naor et~al.(2025)Naor, Srinivasan, \protect\BIBand{}
Wajc}]{naor2025online}
Naor J, Srinivasan A, Wajc D (2025) Online dependent rounding schemes for
bipartite matchings, with. \emph{Proc. 2025 ACM-SIAM Symp. Discrete
Algorithms (SODA)}, 3116--3154 (SIAM).
\bibitem[{Papadimitriou et~al.(2021)Papadimitriou, Pollner, Saberi,
\protect\BIBand{} Wajc}]{papadimitriou2021online}
Papadimitriou C, Pollner T, Saberi A, Wajc D (2021) Online stochastic
max-weight bipartite matching: Beyond prophet inequalities. \emph{Proc. 22nd
ACM Conf. Econ. Comput.}, 763--764.
\bibitem[{Reiman \protect\BIBand{} Wang(2008)}]{reiman2008asymptotically}
Reiman MI, Wang Q (2008) An asymptotically optimal policy for a quantity-based
network revenue management problem. \emph{Math. Oper. Res.} 33(2):257--282.
\bibitem[{Rusmevichientong et~al.(2023)Rusmevichientong, Sumida, Topaloglu,
\protect\BIBand{} Bai}]{rusmevichientong2023revenue}
Rusmevichientong P, Sumida M, Topaloglu H, Bai Y (2023) Revenue management with
heterogeneous resources: Unit resource capacities, advance bookings, and
itineraries over time intervals. \emph{Oper. Res.} 71(6):2196--2216.
\bibitem[{Simchi-Levi et~al.(2025)Simchi-Levi, Zheng, \protect\BIBand{}
Zhu}]{simchi2025greedy}
Simchi-Levi D, Zheng Z, Zhu F (2025) On greedy-like policies in online matching
with reusable network resources and decaying rewards. \emph{Manage. Sci.} .
\bibitem[{Topaloglu(2009)}]{topaloglu2009using}
Topaloglu H (2009) Using {L}agrangian relaxation to compute capacity-dependent
bid prices in network revenue management. \emph{Oper. Res.} 57(3):637--649.
\bibitem[{Zhang \protect\BIBand{} Adelman(2009)}]{zhang2009approximate}
Zhang D, Adelman D (2009) An approximate dynamic programming approach to
network revenue management with customer choice. \emph{Transp. Sci.}
43(3):381--394.
\bibitem[{Zhu et~al.(2023)Zhu, Liu, Wang, \protect\BIBand{}
Wang}]{zhu2023assign}
Zhu F, Liu S, Wang R, Wang Z (2023) Assign-to-seat: Dynamic capacity control
for selling high-speed train tickets. \emph{Manuf. Serv. Oper. Manag.}
25(3):921--938.
\end{thebibliography}