A Comparison of Factor Screening Methods for Simulation Models

YAESOUBI, REZA. A Comparison of Factor Screening Methods for Simulation Models. (Under the direction of Dr. Stephen D. Roberts). Computer simulation models that represent a real-world system consist of a large number of input variables which are generally referred to as factors in Design of Experiments (DOE). The large number of involved factors makes certain analyses which are usually conducted on the simulation models prohibitive or impractical. These analyses may include building predictive metamodels, finding the optimum factor settings for the simulated system, and etc. Factor Screening experiments are intended to examine all or some of the involved factors to identify those with significant effect on a selected response (output). The identified important factors can then be used in subsequent analyses. This thesis is focused on factor screening methods with promising performance on simulation models from the medical decision making community with a relatively large number of factors. Two groups of factor screening methods are addressed: classical designs which are generally used for physical systems, and recent designs which have been exclusively developed for simulation models. Among the classic designs, 2 Fractional Factorial (FF) Designs and Central Composite Designs are investigated in depth, because of their superior performance on the simulation models. Among the recent methods developed for simulation, Sequential Bifurcation (SB), folded-over SB (SB-X), Cheng’s method, Controlled Sequential Bifurcation (CSB), folded-over CSB (CSB-X), Latin Hypercube Designs (LHD), and Nearly Orthogonal Latin Hypercube (NOLH) designs are addressed. In addition, two methods based on Cheng’s method are developed in this thesis: the Modified Cheng’s method, and the folded-over Modified Cheng’s method (MCh-X). MCh-X is shown in this research that has superior performance compared with FF designs, Cheng’s method, and CSB-X for situations where the response has high homogeneous variance. Next, several criteria are considered for evaluating the factor screening methods, and the screening methods are compared based on the proposed criteria. Furthermore, the factor screening experiments are conducted on two available deterministic and stochastic simulation models. For the deterministic medical decision model, 2 Fractional Factorial Designs, folded-over SB (SB-X), and Nearly Orthogonal Latin Hypercube (NOLH) designs are used; and for the stochastic medical decision model, 2 Fractional Factorial Designs, folded-over Modified Cheng’s (MChe-X), and folded-over CSB (CSB-X) were applied Finally, based on quantitative measures, the performance of each method used for the available simulation models is evaluated in terms of its efficiency (requiring minimum number of runs), effectiveness (accuracy), and cost-effectiveness (achieving the highest accuracy with the least number of runs). Cost-effectiveness, which to the best of our knowledge has never been used as a criterion for evaluating factor screening methods, is introduced as a new measure encompassing both the concept of accuracy and efficiency. The research revealed that for the deterministic model, SB-X and for the stochastic model, MChX are the most cost-effective methods. A Comparison of Factor Screening Methods for Simulation Models

[1]  Hong Wan Simulation Factor Screening With Controlled Sequential Bifurcation in the Presence of Interactions , 2004 .

[2]  Linda Trocine,et al.  Finding important independent variables through screening designs: a comparison of methods , 2000, 2000 Winter Simulation Conference Proceedings (Cat. No.00CH37165).

[3]  Jack P. C. Kleijnen,et al.  Finding the Important Factors in Large Discrete-Event Simulation: Sequential Bifurcation and its Applications , 2003 .

[4]  Linda Trocine,et al.  An overview of newer, advanced screening methods for the initial phase in an experimental design , 2001, Proceeding of the 2001 Winter Simulation Conference (Cat. No.01CH37304).

[5]  Carl A. Mauro,et al.  Efficient identification of important factors in large scale simulations , 1986, WSC '86.

[6]  Kenny Q. Ye Orthogonal Column Latin Hypercubes and Their Application in Computer Experiments , 1998 .

[7]  J. Kleijnen Screening Designs for Poly-Factor Experimentation , 1975 .

[8]  Susan M. Sanchez,et al.  Work smarter, not harder: guidelines for designing simulation experiments , 2005, Proceedings of the Winter Simulation Conference, 2005..

[9]  Jack P. C. Kleijnen,et al.  A methodology for fitting and validating metamodels in simulation , 2000, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[10]  Russell C. H. Cheng Searching for important factors: sequential bifurcation under uncertainty , 1997, WSC '97.

[11]  Arnold H. Buss,et al.  A model for frequency domain experiments , 1987, WSC '87.

[12]  Jack P. C. Kleijnen,et al.  State-of-the-Art Review: A User's Guide to the Brave New World of Designing Simulation Experiments , 2005, INFORMS J. Comput..

[13]  J. Kleijnen Statistical tools for simulation practitioners , 1986 .

[14]  Roger Miller,et al.  Design of Experiments A Realistic Approach. , 1975 .

[15]  Barry L. Nelson,et al.  Controlled Sequential Bifurcation: A New Factor-Screening Method for Discrete-Event Simulation , 2006, Oper. Res..

[16]  T. Wallace,et al.  Pretest Estimation in Regression: A Survey , 1977 .

[17]  Fredrik Persson,et al.  Finding the Important Factors in Large Discrete-Event Simulation: Sequential Bifurcation and its Applications , 2003 .

[18]  M. S. Patel GROUP-SCREENING WITH MORE THAN TWO STAGES , 1962 .

[19]  Mansooreh Mollaghasemi,et al.  Comparison of a two-stage group-screening design to a standard 2k-p design for a whole-line semiconductor manufacturing simulation model , 1999, WSC '99.

[20]  Margaret J. Robertson,et al.  Design and Analysis of Experiments , 2006, Handbook of statistics.

[21]  Jack P. C. Kleijnen,et al.  Searching for important factors in simulation models with many factors: Sequential bifurcation , 1997 .

[22]  Chou Hsiung Li A Sequential Method for Screening Experimental Variables , 1962 .

[23]  G. Watson A Study of the Group Screening Method , 1961 .

[24]  Hsin-Fu Wu,et al.  Frequency-based designs for terminating simulations: a peace-enforcement example , 2003, Proceedings of the 2003 Winter Simulation Conference, 2003..

[25]  Richard J. Beckman,et al.  A Comparison of Three Methods for Selecting Values of Input Variables in the Analysis of Output From a Computer Code , 2000, Technometrics.

[26]  Thomas W. Lucas,et al.  Exploring the world of agent-based simulations: simple models, complex analyses , 2002, Proceedings of the Winter Simulation Conference.

[27]  Hong Wan,et al.  A two-phase screening procedure for simulation experiments , 2009, Proceedings of the Winter Simulation Conference, 2005..

[28]  Lee W. Schruben,et al.  An experimental procedure for simulation response surface model identification , 1987, CACM.

[29]  Lee W. Schruben,et al.  Driving Frequency Selection for Frequency Domain Simulation Experiments , 1991, Oper. Res..

[30]  F. David,et al.  Statistical Techniques in Simulation: Part I , 1975 .

[31]  Susan M. Sanchez,et al.  Very large fractional factorial and central composite designs , 2005, TOMC.

[32]  T. M. Cioppa,et al.  Efficient nearly orthogonal and space-filling experimental designs for high-dimensional complex models , 2002 .

[33]  Semra Tunali,et al.  Dealing with the least squares regression assumptions in simulation metamodeling , 2000 .