Computing budget allocation rules for multi-objective simulation models based on different measures of selection quality

In an optimal computing budget allocation problem, different measures of selection quality determine how the best set of designs can be identified and how the simulation budget should be allocated among the designs. In this paper, we look at several measures of selection quality and derive respective allocation rules for the multi-objective computing budget allocation problem. Some computational experiments are carried out to compare the performance of the allocation rules and to identify the suitable ones in certain scenarios.

[1]  Chun-Hung Chen,et al.  Optimal computing budget allocation for Monte Carlo simulation with application to product design , 2003, Simul. Model. Pract. Theory.

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

[3]  Barry L. Nelson,et al.  Selecting the best system: theory and methods , 2003, Proceedings of the 2003 Winter Simulation Conference, 2003..

[4]  Chun-Hung Chen,et al.  A gradient approach for smartly allocating computing budget for discrete event simulation , 1996, Proceedings Winter Simulation Conference.

[5]  A. Alan B. Pritsker,et al.  Introduction to simulation and SLAM II , 1979 .

[6]  M. Degroot.  Optimal Statistical Decisions , 1970 .

[7]  Chun-Hung Chen,et al.  Computing efforts allocation for ordinal optimization and discrete event simulation , 2000, IEEE Trans. Autom. Control..

[8]  Barry L. Nelson,et al.  Selecting the best system: selecting the best system: theory and methods , 2003, WSC '03.

[9]  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.

[10]  Jürgen Branke,et al.  Selecting a Selection Procedure , 2007, Manag. Sci..

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

[12]  Stephen E. Chick,et al.  Simulation Selection Problems: Overview of an Economic Analysis , 2006, Proceedings of the 2006 Winter Simulation Conference.

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

[14]  Stephen E. Chick.  Selecting the best system: a decision-theoretic approach , 1997, WSC '97.

[15]  Chun-Hung Chen,et al.  New development of optimal computing budget allocation for discrete event simulation , 1997, WSC '97.

[16]  Chun-Hung Chen,et al.  Computing budget allocation for simulation experiments with different system structures , 1998, 1998 Winter Simulation Conference. Proceedings (Cat. No.98CH36274).

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

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

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

[20]  Julie L. Swann,et al.  Simple Procedures for Selecting the Best Simulated System When the Number of Alternatives is Large , 2001, Oper. Res..

[21]  Chun-Hung Chen,et al.  Opportunity Cost and OCBA Selection Procedures in Ordinal Optimization for a Fixed Number of Alternative Systems , 2007, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C (Applications and Reviews).

[22]  Stephen E. Chick,et al.  New Two-Stage and Sequential Procedures for Selecting the Best Simulated System , 2001, Oper. Res..

[23]  Stephen E. Chick.  Indifference zone selection procedures: expected opportunity cost guarantees and indifference zone selection procedures , 2003, WSC '03.

[24]  S. E. Chick.  Expected opportunity cost guarantees and indifference zone selection procedures , 2003, Proceedings of the 2003 Winter Simulation Conference, 2003..