Ranking and selection for multiple performance measures using incomplete preference information

This paper presents two new procedures for ranking and selection (R&S) problems where the best system designs are selected from a set of competing ones based on multiple performance measures evaluated through stochastic simulation. In the procedures, the performance measures are aggregated with a multi-attribute utility function, and incomplete preference information regarding the weights that reflect the relative importance of the measures is taken into account. A set of feasible weights is determined according to preference statements that are linear constraints on the weights given by a decision-maker. Non-dominated designs are selected using two dominance relations referred to as pairwise and absolute dominance based on estimates for the expected utilities of the designs over the feasible weights. The procedures allocate a limited number of simulation replications among the designs such that the probabilities of correctly selecting the pairwise and absolutely non-dominated designs are maximized. The new procedures offer ease of eliciting the weights compared with existing R&S procedures that aggregate the performance measures using unique weights. Moreover, computational advantages are provided over existing procedures that identify non-dominated designs based on the expected values of the performance measures. The new procedures allow to obtain a smaller number of non-dominated designs. They also identify these designs correctly with a higher probability or require a smaller number of replications for correct selection. Finally, the new procedures allocate a larger number of replications to the non-dominated designs that are therefore evaluated with greater accuracy. These computational advantages are illustrated through several numerical experiments.

[1]  Douglas J. Morrice,et al.  Ranking and Selection with Multiple "Targets" , 2006, Proceedings of the 2006 Winter Simulation Conference.

[2]  Rakesh K Sarin Screening of multiattribute alternatives , 1977 .

[3]  Douglas J. Morrice,et al.  An approach to ranking and selection for multiple performance measures , 1998, 1998 Winter Simulation Conference. Proceedings (Cat. No.98CH36274).

[4]  R. L. Keeney,et al.  Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Trade-Offs , 1977, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics.

[5]  Martin Weber Decision Making with Incomplete Information , 1987 .

[6]  S. Andradóttir,et al.  Fully sequential procedures for comparing constrained systems via simulation , 2010 .

[7]  Chun-Hung Chen,et al.  Simulation Budget Allocation for Further Enhancing the Efficiency of Ordinal Optimization , 2000, Discret. Event Dyn. Syst..

[8]  W. Edwards,et al.  Decision Analysis and Behavioral Research , 1986 .

[9]  Barry L. Nelson,et al.  Chapter 17 Selecting the Best System , 2006, Simulation.

[10]  Marina Schmid,et al.  Design And Analysis Of Experiments For Statistical Selection Screening And Multiple Comparisons , 2016 .

[11]  F. Fernández,et al.  Multi-criteria analysis with partial information about the weighting coefficients , 1995 .

[12]  Ralph L. Keeney,et al.  Decisions with multiple objectives: preferences and value tradeoffs , 1976 .

[13]  Barry L. Nelson,et al.  Recent advances in ranking and selection , 2007, 2007 Winter Simulation Conference.

[14]  Catherine M. Harmonosky,et al.  Optimization of systems with multiple performance measures via simulation: Survey and recommendations , 2008, Comput. Ind. Eng..

[15]  Gerald W. Evans,et al.  Multicriteria optimization of simulation models , 1991, 1991 Winter Simulation Conference Proceedings..

[16]  Raimo P. Hämäläinen,et al.  Preference Assessment by Imprecise Ratio Statements , 1992, Oper. Res..

[17]  Jrgen Branke EFFICIENT SAMPLING IN INTERACTIVE MULTI-CRITERIA SELECTION , 2007 .

[18]  Loo Hay Lee,et al.  Finding the pareto set for multi-objective simulation models by minimization of expected opportunity cost , 2007, 2007 Winter Simulation Conference.

[19]  A. M. Mármol,et al.  The use of partial information on weights in multicriteria decision problems , 1998 .

[20]  Sigrún Andradóttir,et al.  Finding the best in the presence of a stochastic constraint , 2005, Proceedings of the Winter Simulation Conference, 2005..

[21]  Rakesh K. Sarin,et al.  Ranking with Partial Information: A Method and an Application , 1985, Oper. Res..

[22]  Seong-Hee Kim,et al.  Finding feasible systems in the presence of constraints on multiple performance measures , 2010, TOMC.

[23]  Barry L. Nelson,et al.  Comparing Systems via Simulation , 2007 .

[24]  A. Tamhane Design and Analysis of Experiments for Statistical Selection, Screening, and Multiple Comparisons , 1995 .

[25]  René Boel,et al.  Discrete event dynamic systems: Theory and applications. , 2002 .

[26]  Loo Hay Lee,et al.  Stochastic Simulation Optimization - An Optimal Computing Budget Allocation , 2010, System Engineering and Operations Research.

[27]  YücesanEnver,et al.  Discrete-event simulation optimization using ranking, selection, and multiple comparison procedures , 2003 .

[28]  T. Farmer TESTING THE ROBUSTNESS OF MULTIATTRIBUTE UTILITY THEORY IN AN APPLIED SETTING , 1987 .

[29]  Gordon B. Hazen,et al.  Partial Information, Dominance, and Potential Optimality in Multiattribute Utility Theory , 1986, Oper. Res..

[30]  Enver Yücesan,et al.  Discrete-event simulation optimization using ranking, selection, and multiple comparison procedures: A survey , 2003, TOMC.

[31]  L. Lee,et al.  Finding the non-dominated Pareto set for multi-objective simulation models , 2010 .

[32]  Douglas J. Morrice,et al.  A Multiple Attribute Utility Theory Approach to Ranking and Selection , 2001, Manag. Sci..

[33]  Loo Hay Lee,et al.  Integration of indifference-zone with multi-objective computing budget allocation , 2010, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[34]  Edward L. Hannan,et al.  Obtaining Nondominated Priority Vectors for Multiple Objective Decisionmaking Problems with Different Combinations of Cardinal and Ordinal Information , 1981, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics.

[35]  Loo Hay Lee,et al.  Optimal computing budget allocation for multi-objective simulation models , 2004, Proceedings of the 2004 Winter Simulation Conference, 2004..

[36]  Hamdy A. Taha,et al.  Operations research: an introduction / Hamdy A. Taha , 1982 .

[37]  Loo Hay Lee,et al.  A multi-objective selection procedure of determining a Pareto set , 2009, Comput. Oper. Res..

[38]  Peter I. Frazier,et al.  Guessing preferences: A new approach to multi-attribute ranking and selection , 2011, Proceedings of the 2011 Winter Simulation Conference (WSC).

[39]  Andrew P. Sage,et al.  A model of multiattribute decisionmaking and trade-off weight determination under uncertainty , 1984, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics.

[40]  Chun-Hung Chen,et al.  A Review of Optimal Computing Budget Allocation Algorithms for Simulation Optimization Problem , 2010 .

[41]  Susan R. Hunter,et al.  Optimal Sampling Laws for Stochastically Constrained Simulation Optimization on Finite Sets , 2013, INFORMS J. Comput..

[42]  T. H. Matheiss,et al.  A Survey and Comparison of Methods for Finding All Vertices of Convex Polyhedral Sets , 1980, Math. Oper. Res..

[43]  Kyung S. Park,et al.  Tools for interactive multiattribute decisionmaking with incompletely identified information , 1997 .