An Ordinal Combination across Fidelity Levels

Authors

  • Ian Peterson Author
  • Calvin Duncan Author
  • Patrick Bryant Author

Abstract

Prediction combination can improve ranks, while multifidelity design changes the cost and discrepancy of observations. Their common evaluation should assess local rank reversals between cheap and expensive representations. It counts the high-fidelity checks needed to learn that relationship. A small average prediction gain or nominal cost ratio cannot establish a reliable selected service design. 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. J. Li, J. Du, S. Gao, Q. Ye, and G. Jiang, “Enhancing Electric Vehicle Charging Station Design Using Multi-Fidelity Simulations,” Production and Operations Management, in press.
  2. S. Zhang, J. Xu, E. Huang, C.-H. Chen, and S. Gao, “Improving Ordinal Transformation through Optimal Combination of Multi-Model Predictions,” Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE International Conference on Industrial Technology, pp. 1545–1549, 2016.
  3. 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.
  4. Glasserman, Paul. Monte Carlo Methods in Financial Engineering. Springer, 2004. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-21617-1.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. Rasmussen, Carl Edward, and Christopher K. I. Williams. Gaussian Processes for Machine Learning. MIT Press, 2006. https://gaussianprocess.org/gpml/.
  10. 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.

Downloads

Published

2025-09-15