A Stopping Deadline for a Probabilistic Service Requirement

Authors

  • Wesley Foster Author
  • Paul Lewis Author
  • Gavin Armstrong Author

Abstract

Service allocation uses a probabilistic operating outcome, while a precision-medicine stopping rule emphasizes profile-level evidence. Their common methodological agenda defines the decision protected at stopping. A service adaptation needs its own flow data and requirement. An early stop is valuable only if independent checking supports that declared action at the counted total cost. 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. W. Chen, S. Gao, W. Chen, and J. Du, “Optimizing Service System Resource Allocations with Probabilistic Measures: A Simulation Optimization Perspective,” Production and Operations Management, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 65–81, 2023.
  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. Rasmussen, Carl Edward, and Christopher K. I. Williams. Gaussian Processes for Machine Learning. MIT Press, 2006. https://gaussianprocess.org/gpml/.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. Glasserman, Paul. Monte Carlo Methods in Financial Engineering. Springer, 2004. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-21617-1.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.

Downloads

Published

2026-08-26

Issue

Section

Articles