An Opportunity-Cost Subset under Correlated Offline Beliefs

Authors

  • Tyler Johnston Author
  • Cameron Carter Author
  • Anthony Allen Author

Abstract

Correlated beliefs can make a retained subset look precise before direct observations support every candidate. Opportunity-cost evaluation should focus on consequential exclusions caused by that borrowing. Independent local checks and a defined second stage assess the complete retained object. Posterior confidence and a cheap initial subset do not establish the downstream action's realized loss. 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. S. Gao and W. Chen, “Efficient Subset Selection for the Expected Opportunity Cost,” Automatica, vol. 59, pp. 19–26, 2015.
  2. F. Zhang, S. Gao, and Jie Song, “Offline Contextual Learning with Correlated Bayesian Beliefs,” Proceedings of the 2024 IEEE International Conference on Automation Science and Engineering, pp. 2496–2500, 2024.
  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