Opportunity Loss at an Input-Sensitive Top-Group Boundary

Authors

  • Stephen Hoffman Author
  • Logan Graham Author
  • Thomas Wells Author

Abstract

Input uncertainty can move group membership while expected opportunity cost determines which exclusions are serious. Evaluation needs a declared group size and a shared loss across scenarios. It counts input evidence separately from simulator replications. Resolving interior nominal ranks can be less useful than directly checking the candidates whose scenario-sensitive membership changes the next 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. H. Xiao and S. Gao, “Simulation Budget Allocation for Selecting the Top-m Designs with Input Uncertainty,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 63, no. 9, pp. 3127–3134, 2018.
  2. S. Gao, W. Chen, and L. Shi, “A New Budget Allocation Framework for the Expected Opportunity Cost,” Operations Research, vol. 65, no. 3, pp. 787–803, 2017.
  3. 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.
  4. Rasmussen, Carl Edward, and Christopher K. I. Williams. Gaussian Processes for Machine Learning. MIT Press, 2006. https://gaussianprocess.org/gpml/.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. Glasserman, Paul. Monte Carlo Methods in Financial Engineering. Springer, 2004. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-21617-1.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.

Downloads

Published

2026-07-01

Issue

Section

Articles