Input Uncertainty in an Adoption and Avoidance Portfolio

Authors

  • Owen Sullivan Author
  • Evan Anderson Author
  • James Murphy Author

Abstract

Best-and-worst subsets define both attractive and undesirable candidates, while input uncertainty can alter those classifications. Evaluation should preserve scenario-specific membership and distinguish false adoption from false avoidance. New input observations and simulator replications purchase different evidence. Precise nominal interior ranks cannot defend the entire portfolio across plausible operating distributions. 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, S. Gao, and L. H. Lee, “Simulation Budget Allocation for Simultaneously Selecting the Best and Worst Subsets,” Automatica, vol. 84, pp. 117–127, 2017.
  2. S. Gao, H. Xiao, E. Zhou, and W. Chen, “Optimal Computing Budget Allocation with Input Uncertainty,” Proceedings of the 2016 Winter Simulation Conference, pp. 839–846, 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