Stopping Inspection Evidence before Residual Risk Is Known

Authors

  • Jonathan Knight Author
  • Jeffrey Wright Author
  • Adam Hall Author

Abstract

Partial inspection determines what defects become observable; a stopping criterion determines when evidence collection ends. A fair comparison needs an independent audit stream and declared spatial coverage. Detected failures at stopping are not the same outcome as residual population risk. The audit cost belongs in the complete resource budget needed to defend the final action. This focused synthesis develops an empirical comparison that preserves the terminal action, observation process, and total verification cost. Its proposed tests are prospective; no new simulation run, model-training result, or intervention effect is reported.

References

  1. M. Qin, Z. Shi, W. Chen, S. Gao, and L. Shi, “Wafer Defect Inspection Optimization with Partial Coverage: A Numerical Approach,” IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 1916–1927, 2020.
  2. M. Ding, S. Gao, and Q. Zhao, “Stopping Rules for Sampling in Precision Medicine,” Proceedings of the 2025 Winter Simulation Conference, pp. 929–940, 2025.
  3. Sacks, Jerome, William J. Welch, Toby J. Mitchell, and Henry P. Wynn. “Design and Analysis of Computer Experiments.” Statistical Science, vol. 4, no. 4, 1989, pp. 409–423. https://doi.org/10.1214/ss/1177012413.
  4. Bertsimas, Dimitris, and Melvyn Sim. “The Price of Robustness.” Operations Research, vol. 52, no. 1, 2004, pp. 35–53. https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.1030.0065.
  5. Campi, Marco C., and Simone Garatti. “The Exact Feasibility of Randomized Solutions of Uncertain Convex Programs.” SIAM Journal on Optimization, vol. 19, no. 3, 2008, pp. 1211–1230. https://doi.org/10.1137/07069821X.
  6. Glasserman, Paul. Monte Carlo Methods in Financial Engineering. Springer, 2004. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-21617-1.
  7. Ankenman, Bruce, Barry L. Nelson, and Jeremy Staum. “Stochastic Kriging for Simulation Metamodeling.” Operations Research, vol. 58, no. 2, 2010, pp. 371–382. https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.1090.0754.
  8. Kim, Seong-Hee, and Barry L. Nelson. “A Fully Sequential Procedure for Indifference-Zone Selection in Simulation.” ACM Transactions on Modeling and Computer Simulation, vol. 11, no. 3, 2001, pp. 251–273. https://doi.org/10.1145/502109.502111.
  9. Chick, Stephen E., and Koichiro Inoue. “New Two-Stage and Sequential Procedures for Selecting the Best Simulated System.” Operations Research, vol. 49, no. 5, 2001, pp. 732–743. https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.49.5.732.10615.
  10. Frazier, Peter I., Warren B. Powell, and Savas Dayanik. “A Knowledge-Gradient Policy for Sequential Information Collection.” SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, vol. 47, no. 5, 2008, pp. 2410–2439. https://doi.org/10.1137/070693424.

Downloads

Published

2025-08-29

Issue

Section

Articles