Finding the best in the presence of a stochastic constraint

Proceedings - Winter Simulation Conference

Volumn 2005, Issue , 2005, Pages 732-738

  Andradóttir, Sigrún ^a   Goldsman, David ^a   Kim, Seong Hee ^a  

^a Georgia Institute of Technology   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER SIMULATION; CONSTRAINT THEORY; PROBLEM SOLVING; STATISTICAL METHODS;

SIMULATED SYSTEMS; STOCHASTIC CONSTRAINTS;

STOCHASTIC CONTROL SYSTEMS;

EID: 33846704508     PISSN: 08917736     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1109/WSC.2005.1574315     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (25)

1. Andradóttir, S., D. Goldsman, and S.-H. Kim. 2005. Fully sequential procedures for comparing constrained systems via simulation. Working Paper, School of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia.
2. Bechhofer, R. E. 1954. A single-sample multiple decision procedure for ranking means of normal populations with known variances. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 25:16-39.
3. Boesel, J., B. L. Nelson, and S.-H. Kim. 2003. Using ranking and selection to "clean up" after simulation optimization. Operations Research, 51:814-825.
4. Butler, J., D. J. Morrice, and P. W. Mullarkey. 2001. A multiple attribute utility theory approach to ranking and selection. Management Science, 47:800-816.
5. Chen, C.-H. 1996. A lower bound for the correct-selection probability and its application to discrete event simulations. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 41:1227-1231.
6. Chen, H.-C., C.-H. Chen, L. Dai, and E. Yücesan. 1997. New development of optimal computing budget allocation for discrete event simulation. In Proceedings of the 1997 Winter Simulation Conference, ed. S. Andradöttir, K. J. Healy, D. H. Withers, and B. L. Nelson, 334-341. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Piscataway, New Jersey.
7. Chen, H.-C., C.-H. Chen, and E. Yücesan. 2000. Computing efforts allocation for ordinal optimization and discrete event simulation. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 45: 960-964.
8. Chick, S. E. 1997. Selecting the best system: A decision-theoretic approach. In Proceedings of the 1997 Winter Simulation Conference, ed. S. Andradóttir, K. J. Healy, D. H. Withers, and B. L. Nelson, 326-333. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Piscataway, New Jersey.
9. Chick, S. E., and K. Inoue. 2001a. New two-stage and sequential procedures for selecting the best simulated system. Operations Research, 49:732-743.
10. Chick, S.E., and K. Inoue. 2001b. New procedures for identifying the best simulated system using common random numbers. Management Science, 47:1133-1149.
11. Goldsman, D., S.-H. Kim, W. S. Marshall, and B. L. Nelson. 2000. Ranking and selection for steady-state simulation. In Proceedings of the 2000 Winter Simulation Conference, ed. J. Joines, R. R. Barton, P. Fishwick, and K. Kang, 544-553. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Piscataway, New Jersey.
12. Goldsman, D., S.-H. Kim, W. S. Marshall, and B. L. Nelson. 2002. Ranking and selection procedures for steady-state simulation: Perspectives and procedures. INFORMS Journal on Computing, 14:2-19.
13. Goldsman, D., and B. L. Nelson. 1998. Comparing systems via simulation. In Handbook of Simulation: Principles, Methodology, Advances, Applications, and Practice, ed. J. Banks, 273-306. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
14. Hartmann, M. 1988. An improvement on Paulson's sequential ranking procedure. Sequential Analysis, 7:363-372.
15. Hartmann, M. 1991. An improvement on Paulson's procedure for selecting the population with the largest mean from k normal populations with a common unknown variance. Sequential Analysis, 10:1-16.
16. Kim, S.-H. 2003. Comparison with a standard via fully sequential procedures. In Proceedings of the 2003 Winter Simulation Conference, ed. S. E. Chick, P. J. Sanchez, D. Ferrin, and D. J. Morrice, 528-534. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Piscataway, New Jersey.
17. Kim, S.-H. 2005. Comparison with a standard via fully sequential procedures. ACM TOMACS, 15:1-20.
18. Kim, S.-H., and B. L. Nelson. 2001. A fully sequential procedure for indifference-zone selection in simulation. ACM TOMACS, 11:251-273.
19. Kim, S.-H., and B. L. Nelson. 2005. On the asymptotic validity of fully sequential selection procedures for steady-state simulation. Operations Research, forth-coming.
20. Nelson, B. L., J. Swann, D. Goldsman, and W.-M. T. Song. 2001. Simple procedures for selecting the best system when the number of alternatives is large. Operations Research, 49:950-963.
21. Paulson, E. 1964. A sequential procedure for selecting the population with the largest mean from k normal populations. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 35:174-180.
22. Pichitlamken, J., and B. L. Nelson. 2001. A selection-of-the best procedure for optimization via simulation. In Proceedings of the 2001 Winter Simulation Conference, ed. B. A. Peters, J. S. Smith, D. J. Medeiros, and M. W. Rohrer, 401-407. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Piscataway, New Jersey.
23. Pichitlamken, J., B. L. Nelson, and L. J. Hong. 2005. A sequential procedure for neighborhood selection-of-the-best in optimization via simulation. European Journal of Operational Research, forthcoming.
24. Rinott, Y. 1978. On two-stage selection procedures and related probability-inequalities. Communications in Statistics, A7:799-811.
25. Santner, T. J., and A. C. Tamhane. 1984. Designing experiments for selecting a normal population with a large mean and a small variance. In Design of Experiments - Ranking and Selection: Essays in Honor of Robert E. Bechhofer, ed. T. J. Santner and A. C. Tamhane, 179-198. New York: Marcel-Dekker.