Selecting a selection procedure

Management Science

Volumn 53, Issue 12, 2007, Pages 1916-1932

  Branke, Jürgen ^a   Chick, Stephen E ^b   Schmidt, Christian ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF KARLSRUHE   (Germany)

^b INSEAD   (France)

Author keywords

Sampling; Simulation; Statistical analysis; Statistics

Indexed keywords

BAYESIAN NETWORKS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; NUMERICAL METHODS; OPTIMIZATION; SAMPLING;

SAMPLING ALLOCATIONS; SELECTION PROCEDURES; SIMULATION OPTIMIZATION;

STATISTICS;

EID: 38549097195     PISSN: 00251909     EISSN: 15265501     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.1070.0721     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Bechhofer, R. E., T. J. Santner, D. M. Goldsman. 1995. Design and Analysis for Statistical Selection, Screening, and Multiple Comparisons. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
2. Bernardo, J. M., A. F. M. Smith. 1994. Bayesian Theory. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK.
3. Boesel, J., B. L. Nelson, S.-H. Kim. 2003. Using ranking and selection to "clean" up after simulation optimization. Oper. Res. 51(5) 814-825.
4. Branke, J., C. Schmidt. 2004. Sequential sampling in noisy environments. X. Yao, E. Burke, J. A. Lozano, J. Smith, J. J. Merelo-Guervós, J. A. Bullinaria, J. Rowe, P. Tino, A. Kabán, H.-P. Schwefel, eds. Parallel Problem Solving from Nature. Vol. 3242. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg/New York, 202-211.
5. Branke, J., S. E. Chick, C. Schmidt. 2005. New developments in ranking and selection, with an empirical comparison of the three main approaches. M. Kuhl, N. Steiger, F. Armstrong, J. Joines, eds. Proc. 2005 Winter Simulation Conf, IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, 708-717.
6. Butler, J., D. J. Morrice, P. W Mullarkey. 2001. A multiple attribute utility theory approach to ranking and selection. Management Sci. 47(6) 800-816.
7. Chen, C.-H. 1996. A lower bound for the correct subset-selection probability and its application to discrete event simulations. IEEE Trans. Automatic Control 41(8) 1227-1231.
8. Chen, C.-H., J. Lin, E. Yücesan, S. E. Chick. 2000. Simulation budget allocation for further enhancing the efficiency of ordinal optimization. Discrete Event Dynam. Systems: Theory Appl. 10(3) 251-270.
9. Chen, C.-H., E. Yücesan, L. Dai, H. Chen. 2007. Efficient computation of optimal budget allocation for discrete event simulation experiment. IIE Trans. Forthcoming.
10. Chen, E. J., W D. Kelton. 2005. Sequential selection procedures: Using sample means to improve efficiency. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 166(1) 133-153.
11. Chick, S. E., K. Inoue. 1998. Sequential allocation procedures that reduce risk for multiple comparisons. D. J. Medeiros, E. J. Watson, M. Manivannan, J. Carson, eds. Proc. 1998 Winter Simulation Conf., IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, 669-676.
12. Chick, S. E., K. Inoue. 2001a. New two-stage and sequential procedures for selecting the best simulated system. Oper. Res. 49(5) 732-743.
13. Chick, S. E., K. Inoue. 2001b. New procedures for identifying the best simulated system using common random numbers. Management Sci. 47(8) 1133-1149.
14. Chick, S. E., K. Inoue. 2002. Corrigendum: New selection procedures. Oper. Res. 50(3) 566.
15. Chick, S. E., Y Wu. 2005. Selection procedures with frequentist expected opportunity cost bounds. Oper. Res. 53(5) 867-878.
16. Dai, L. 1996. Convergence properties of ordinal comparison in the simulation of discrete event systems. J. Optim. Theory Appl. 91(2) 363-388.
17. de Groot, M. H. 1970. Optimal Statistical Decisions. McGraw-Hill, New York.
18. Fu, M. C., J.-Q. Hu, C.-H. Chen, X. Xiong. 2007. Simulation allocation for determining the best design in the presence of correlated sampling. INFORMS J. Comput. 19(1) 101-111.
19. Goldsman, D., S.-H. Kim, W. S. Marshall, B. L. Nelson. 2002. Ranking and selection for steady-state simulation: Procedures and perspectives. INFORMS J. Comput. 14(1) 2-19.
20. Gupta, S. S., K. J. Miescke. 1994. Bayesian look ahead one stage sampling allocations for selecting the largest normal mean. Statist. Papers 35 169-177.
21. He, D., S. E. Chick, C.-H. Chen. 2007. The opportunity cost and OCBA selection procedures in ordinal optimization for a fixed number of alternative systems. IEEE Trans. Systems, Machines, Cybernetics C. Forthcoming.
22. Inoue, K., S. E. Chick, C.-H. Chen. 1999. An empirical evaluation of several methods to select the best system. ACM Trans. Model. Comput. Simulation 9(4) 381-407.
23. Kim, S.-H., B. L. Nelson. 2001. A fully sequential procedure for indifference-zone selection in simulation. ACM Trans. Model. Comput. Simulation 11(3) 251-273.
24. Kim, S.-H., B. L. Nelson. 2006. Selecting the best system. S. G. Henderson, B. L. Nelson, eds. Handbooks in Operations Research and Management Science: Simulation. Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 501-534.
25. Law, A. M., W D. Kelton. 2000. Simulation Modeling and Analysis, 3rd ed. McGraw-Hill, New York.
26. Nelson, B. L., S. Banerjee. 2001. Selecting a good system: Procedures and inference. IIE Trans. 33(3) 149-166.
27. Nelson, B. L., D. Goldsman. 2001. Comparisons with a standard in simulation experiments. Management Sci. 47(3) 449-463.