An investigation of the behavior of simulation response surfaces

Abstract This paper is part of a research stream whose purpose is to study the effect of simulation response surface behavior on the choice of appropriate simulation optimization search technique. This paper's research lays some groundwork by examining the behavior of simulation response surfaces themselves. The point here is not to criticize existing simulation-optimization techniques (such as Response Surface Methodology (RSM). Rather, one point is to emphasize the care and precision that must be used to invoke extant procedures properly, while another is to demonstrate the need for additional methods such as nonparametric approaches. In particular, this paper examines a simple, inventory-simulation model under various experimental conditions, including some factors under a user's control, and some not. Both point and region estimates of surface characteristics are determined and graphed while such factors as number of replications, simulation run length, and demand and lead-time variances are varied. It is found, for example, that even for this simple surface such optimization techniques as first-order RSM can be inappropriate over 21–98% of the feasible region, depending on the case. Four implications are noted from the research: the care that should be exercised with existing simulation-optimization techniques; the need for a simulation-optimization starter; the importance of examining global, nonparametric-metamodeling approaches to simulation optimization; and the desirability of investigating a multi-strategy approach to optimization. The paper concludes with a call for further research investigating these suggestions.

[1]  C. Fonseca,et al.  GENETIC ALGORITHMS FOR MULTI-OBJECTIVE OPTIMIZATION: FORMULATION, DISCUSSION, AND GENERALIZATION , 1993 .

[2]  R. Deal Simulation Modeling and Analysis (2nd Ed.) , 1994 .

[3]  R. A. Gaskins,et al.  Nonparametric roughness penalties for probability densities , 2022 .

[4]  Peter J. Fleming,et al.  Genetic Algorithms for Multiobjective Optimization: FormulationDiscussion and Generalization , 1993, ICGA.

[5]  M. E. Johnson,et al.  A Comparative Study of Tests for Homogeneity of Variances, with Applications to the Outer Continental Shelf Bidding Data , 1981 .

[6]  Averill M. Law,et al.  Simulation Modeling and Analysis , 1982 .

[7]  Loren Paul Rees,et al.  SEPARATING THE ART AND SCIENCE OF SIMULATION OPTIMIZATION: A KNOWLEDGE-BASED ARCHITECTURE PROVIDING FOR MACHINE LEARNING , 1993 .

[8]  Russell R. Barton,et al.  Metamodels for simulation input-output relations , 1992, WSC '92.

[9]  V. Barnett,et al.  Applied Linear Statistical Models , 1975 .

[10]  Yu-Shen Zheng,et al.  Optimal Control Policy for Stochastic Inventory Systems with Markovian Discount Opportunities , 1994, Oper. Res..

[11]  Marc S. Meketon,et al.  Optimization in simulation: a survey of recent results , 1987, WSC '87.

[12]  H. Müller Optimal designs for nonparametric kernel regression , 1984 .

[13]  Yu-Chi Ho,et al.  Perturbation analysis methods for discrete event dynamical systems and simulations , 1984, WSC '84.

[14]  Samuel D. Conte,et al.  Elementary Numerical Analysis: An Algorithmic Approach , 1975 .

[15]  S. Jacobson,et al.  Techniques for simulation response optimization , 1989 .

[16]  M. Hossein Safizadeh,et al.  Optimization in simulation: Current issues and the future outlook , 1990 .

[17]  Loren Paul Rees,et al.  Use of a classifier in a knowledge‐based simulation optimization system , 1995 .

[18]  Ralph B. D'Agostino,et al.  Goodness-of-Fit-Techniques , 2020 .

[19]  L. W. Schruben,et al.  Simulation sensitivity analysis using frequency domain experiments , 1989, WSC '89.

[20]  Farhad Azadivar,et al.  A tutorial on simulation optimization , 1992, WSC '92.