Grid Theory and Polynomiality in Dynamic Lot-Sizing

Fix an arbitrary setup vector y\in\{0,1\}^{T} and an extreme point x\in X(y).

Consider a regeneration interval (\ell,r] associated with x. Suppose, by contradiction, that two distinct periods i and j, with \ell<i<j\le r, are partially utilized. Thus, L_i y_i < x_i < U_i y_i and L_j y_j < x_j < U_j y_j.

For a scalar \theta, define the perturbed production vector x(\theta) by x_i(\theta)=x_i+\theta and x_j(\theta)=x_j-\theta, leaving all other production quantities unchanged.

This perturbation preserves total production and leaves cumulative production unchanged from period j onward. For t=i,\ldots,j-1, cumulative production becomes P_t(\theta)=P_t+\theta.

Since these periods lie strictly inside the regeneration interval, we have P_t>D_t. Moreover, both x_i and x_j lie strictly between their respective production bounds.

Consequently, there exists \varepsilon>0 such that both x(\varepsilon) and x(-\varepsilon) belong to X(y).

These vectors are distinct, and x=\frac12 x(\varepsilon) +\frac12 x(-\varepsilon), contradicting the assumption that x is an extreme point of X(y).

Therefore, every regeneration interval contains at most one partially utilized production period.

All remaining production quantities lie on their respective bounds, so that x_t\in\{0,L_t,U_t\}. This completes the proof.

By Theorem 1, there exists an optimal solution such that every regeneration interval contains at most one partially utilized production period.

Consider such an optimal solution and an arbitrary regeneration interval (\ell,r]. By definition, P_\ell=D_\ell and P_r=D_r. Suppose first that the regeneration interval contains a partially utilized period k.

Consider a period t satisfying \ell\leq t<k. Since the unique possible partially utilized period is k, every production quantity in \{\ell+1,\ldots,t\} belongs to its corresponding boundary set. Hence, x_u\in\mathcal{B}_u for all u=\ell+1,\ldots,t.

Using the left endpoint of the regeneration interval gives

Therefore, \sum_{u=\ell+1}^{t}x_u \in \mathcal{A}(\{\ell+1,\ldots,t\}), and consequently P_t\in G_t^{+}.

Now consider a period t satisfying k\leq t\leq r. Using the right endpoint of the regeneration interval,

Since t\geq k, the possibly partially utilized period k does not appear in the sum on the right-hand side. Hence, x_u\in\mathcal{B}_u for all u=t+1,\ldots,r, so that \sum_{u=t+1}^{r}x_u \in \mathcal{A}(\{t+1,\ldots,r\}). It follows that P_t\in G_t^{-}.

Suppose now that the regeneration interval contains no partially utilized production period. Then every production quantity in the interval belongs to its corresponding boundary set. For every t\in\{\ell,\ldots,r\},

and therefore P_t\in G_t^{+}.

Thus, in all cases, P_t\in G_t^{+}\cup G_t^{-}. Moreover, feasibility additionally implies D_t\leq P_t\leq D_T. Hence,

Since the argument applies to every regeneration interval, we obtain P_t\in G_t for all t\in\mathcal{T}\cup\{0\}.

We first consider the problem restricted to cumulative production trajectories satisfying P_t\in G_t for all t\in\mathcal{T}\cup\{0\}.

For t=0, the only feasible cumulative production level is P_0=0, so the initialization is correct.

Assume that the dynamic programming values are correct at the end of period t-1, and consider a state s\in G_t. Every feasible partial solution ending at s has a predecessor r=P_{t-1}\in G_{t-1}, and produces x_t=s-r. The transition is feasible precisely when x_t=0 or L_t\leq x_t\leq U_t for x_t>0. Its additional cost is \phi_t(x_t)+h_t(s-D_t). Taking the minimum over all feasible predecessors therefore gives exactly recurrence (?).

Therefore, by induction, F_T(D_T) is the optimal value among all feasible solutions whose cumulative production levels belong to the grids. Moreover, by the MGT, restricting the dynamic program to the additive grids causes no loss of optimality. Thus, the solution of the dynamic program is optimal.

Fix a period t. The states of G_t and the predecessor states of G_{t-1} are scanned in increasing order.

For the positive production term in (?), a monotone deque maintains the minimum of F_{t-1}(r)-p_t r over the moving window W_t(s). Each point of G_{t-1} is inserted into the deque at most once and removed at most once. Hence, evaluating all positive production transitions in period t requires O(N_{t-1}+N_t) time. The zero-production term \overline{F}_{t-1}(s) can be evaluated during the same ordered scan. Summing over all periods gives (1).

Only two consecutive dynamic programming layers and the monotone deque need to be stored when only the optimal value is required. Each contains at most O(N) values, yielding the stated working-memory bound. If a predecessor is stored for every finite state in order to recover an optimal solution without recomputation, the corresponding storage is O(\sum_{t=0}^{T}N_t).

Since G\subseteq H, the MGT guarantees the existence of an optimal solution whose cumulative production trajectory is entirely contained in H. Since G_t\subseteq[D_t,D_T], this trajectory is also contained in H\cap[D_t,D_T] in every period t.

Conversely, every finite-cost path considered by the dynamic program satisfies the original production boundary and inventory constraints. The restriction s\geq D_t ensures nonnegative inventory, while the transition conditions enforce production feasibility. Thus, enlarging the grid may introduce additional states, but it cannot introduce a solution with an objective value smaller than the true optimum.

Hence, the dynamic program over H contains at least one optimal trajectory and returns the optimal value.

Let H(I) be the grid envelope provided by Definition 2, and set N_H:=|H(I)|. By assumption, N_H is polynomially bounded in \langle I\rangle, and the grid can be generated in polynomial time.

A polynomial number of rational grid points can also be sorted in polynomial time. By Proposition 1, the dynamic programming phase requires O(N_H\log N_H+TN_H) time when the common grid implementation is used. Since T is polynomially bounded by \langle I\rangle and N_H is polynomially bounded, the complete algorithm runs in polynomial time.

Let a\in\mathcal{A}(J). Then a=\sum_{u\in J}b_u for some b_u\in\mathcal{B}_u. By (?), a = \sum_{i=1}^{p}\theta_i\beta_i, where the aggregate coordinates satisfy |\beta_i|\leq T^{c_i+1}.

Furthermore, because all production boundaries are nonnegative, we have 0\leq a\leq U^\Sigma. Therefore, a\in\widehat{\mathcal{A}}.

For each coordinate \beta_i, there are at most 2T^{c_i+1}+1 integer values satisfying its bound. Hence, the total number of coordinate vectors is at most \prod_{i=1}^{p} \left( 2T^{c_i+1}+1 \right).

Different vectors may generate the same value, so this is also an upper bound on |\widehat{\mathcal{A}}|.

Let s\in G. Then s\in G_t for some t\in\mathcal{T}\cup\{0\}. If s\in G_t^+, then by definition s = D_j+a for some 0\leq j\leq t and some a\in \mathcal{A}(\{j+1,\ldots,t\}). By Lemma 1, a\in\widehat{\mathcal{A}}, and therefore s\in\widehat{G}.

Similarly, if s\in G_t^-, then s = D_j-a for some t\leq j\leq T and a\in \mathcal{A}(\{t+1,\ldots,j\}). Again, a\in\widehat{\mathcal{A}}, and hence s\in\widehat{G}. Thus, G\subseteq\widehat{G}.

For every cumulative demand anchor D_j, there are at most 2|\widehat{\mathcal{A}}| values corresponding to the two signs. Hence, |\widehat{G}| \leq 2(T+1)|\widehat{\mathcal{A}}|.

The result follows from Lemma 1.

Let p denote the bounded additive dimension, and let c_1,\ldots,c_p be the fixed exponents of an additive representation. By Lemma 2, the exact additive grid is contained in the grid envelope \widehat{G}, whose cardinality satisfies (2). Since p and c_1,\ldots,c_p are fixed independently of T, this quantity is polynomial in T. More precisely, |\widehat{G}| = O \left( T^{ 1+\sum_{i=1}^{p}(c_i+1) } \right).

By Definition 3, the basis values and coordinate maps are polynomial-time computable and have polynomially bounded encoding lengths. The additive envelope \widehat{\mathcal{A}} can therefore be generated by enumerating all integer vectors (\beta_1,\ldots,\beta_p) satisfying |\beta_i|\leq T^{c_i+1} for all i=1,\ldots,p, and evaluating \sum_{i=1}^{p}\theta_i\beta_i exactly.

Because the number of such vectors is polynomial, the additive envelope can be generated in polynomial time. Combining each retained value with the T+1 cumulative demand anchors and the two possible signs generates \widehat{G} in polynomial time.

Therefore, \widehat{G} satisfies the polynomial grid condition. Moreover, by Proposition 3, the GDP algorithm solves the problem in polynomial time.

For a fixed setup vector y, the feasible production vectors belong to the polytope \mathcal{X}(y) defined in (?). Using I_t=\sum_{u=1}^{t}x_u-D_t, the objective, apart from the constant setup term \sum_{t=1}^{T}f_ty_t, can be written as

Since each c_t and H_t is concave and the inventory levels are affine functions of x, the function \Psi_y is concave on \mathcal{X}(y).

Let x^\star be an optimal solution. Since \mathcal{X}(y) is a polytope, x^\star can be expressed as a convex combination of its extreme points: x^\star = \sum_{q=1}^{m}\lambda_q v^q where \lambda_q\geq0 and \sum_{q=1}^{m}\lambda_q=1.

By concavity,

Therefore, at least one extreme point v^q satisfies

Since x^\star is optimal, equality must hold. Hence, an optimal extreme point exists.

Let y^\star be the setup vector of an optimal solution of problem \mathcal P^{\mathrm{conc}}. By Lemma 3, there exists an optimal production vector x^\star that is an extreme point of \mathcal{X}(y^\star).

Theorem 1 therefore implies that, in every regeneration interval, all but at most one production quantity belong to \mathcal{B}_t=\{0,L_t,U_t\}.

The proof of the MGT is purely structural and applies to any solution satisfying this boundary property. Hence, the corresponding cumulative production trajectory satisfies P_t\in G_t for all t\in\mathcal{T}\cup\{0\}.

By Theorem 5, an optimal solution exists on the same additive grid as in the linear cost model. Moreover, by Theorem 4, bounded additive dimension provides a polynomially constructible grid envelope \widehat{G} of polynomial cardinality.

Applying the recurrence (?) to the feasible states \widehat{G}\cap[D_t,D_T] in period t examines at most |\widehat{G}|^2 predecessor–successor pairs per period. Therefore, the total number of transitions is polynomial in the input size. Since every transition cost can also be evaluated in polynomial time, the complete algorithm is polynomial.

The common cumulative production grid contains O(T) states. The accelerated recurrence of Section ? therefore requires O(T|H^{\mathrm{unc}}|)=O(T^2) time.

The grid envelope contains O(T^2) states. Once sorted, Proposition 1 yields O(T|H^{C}|) = O(T^3) time and O(T^2) memory.

The set H^{L} is a grid envelope of cardinality O(T^2). Proposition 1 therefore gives an O(T^3) implementation.

The grid envelope H^{L,C} contains O(T^3) cumulative production states. The result follows directly from Proposition 1.