Paradoxes in Learning and the Marginal Value of Information

References

• Berger J. O., Deely J. A Bayesian approach to ranking and selection of related means with alternatives to analysis-of-variance methodology. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. (1988) 83(402):364–373Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bickel J. E. The relationship between perfect and imperfect information in a two-action risk-sensitive problem. Decision Anal. (2008) 5(3):116–128Link, Google Scholar
• Bickel J. E., Smith J. E. Optimal sequential exploration: A binary learning model. Decision Anal. (2006) 3(1):16–32Link, Google Scholar
• Bickel J. E., Gibson R., McVay D., Pickering S., Waggoner J. Quantifying the reliability and value of 3D land seismic. SPE Reservoir Evaluation Engrg. (2008) 11(5):832–841Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bilgic M., Getoor L. VOILA: Efficient feature-value acquisition for classification. Proc. Natl. Conf. Artificial Intelligence (2007) (AAAI Press, Menlo Park, CA) 1225–1230Google Scholar
• Boyd S., Vandenberghe L.Convex Optimization (2004) (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK) Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bratvold R., Bickel J. E., Lohne H. P. Value of information in the oil and gas industry: Past, present, and future. SPE Annual Technical Conf. Exhibition (2007) (Society of Petroleum Engineers, Richardson, TX) Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chade H., Schlee E. Another look at the Radner-Stiglitz nonconcavity in the value of information. J. Econom. Theory (2002) 107(2):421–452Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chen C. H. An effective approach to smartly allocate computing budget for discrete event simulation. IEEE Conf. Decision Control, 34th (1995) New Orleans(IEEE, Piscataway, NJ) 2598–2603Google Scholar
• Chen C. H. A lower bound for the correct subset-selection probability and its application to discrete-event system simulations. IEEE Trans. Automatic Control (1996) 41(8):1227–1231Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chen C. H., Dai L., Chen H. C., Charnes J. M., Morrice D. J., Brunner D. T., Swain J. J. A gradient approach for smartly allocating computing budget for discrete event simulation. Proc. 1996 Winter Simulation Conf. (1996) (IEEE, Piscataway, NJ) 398–405Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chen C. H., Lin J., Yücesan E., Chick S. E. Simulation budget allocation for further enhancing the efficiency of ordinal optimization. Discrete Event Dynam. Systems (2000b) 10(3):251–270Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chen H. C., Chen C. H., Yucesan E. Computing efforts allocation for ordinal optimization and discrete event simulation. Automatic Control, IEEE Trans. (2000a) 45(5):960–964Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chen H. C., Dai L., Chen C. H., Yücesan E. New development of optimal computing budget allocation for discrete event simulation. Proc. 1997 Winter Simulation Conf. (1997) (IEEE, Piscataway, NJ) 334–341Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chick S. E., Frazier P. I. The conjunction of the knowledge gradient and the economic approach to simulation selection. Proc. 2009 Winter Simulation Conf. (2009a) (IEEE, Piscataway, NJ) 528–539Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chick S. E., Frazier P. I. Sequential sampling for selection: The discounted case. (2009b) (INSEAD, Fontainebleau, France) Google Scholar
• Chick S. E., Gans N. Economic analysis of simulation selection problems. Management Sci. (2009) 55(3):421–437Link, Google Scholar
• Chick S. E., Inoue K. New two-stage and sequential procedures for selecting the best simulated system. Oper. Res. (2001) 49(5):732–743Link, Google Scholar
• Chick S. E., Branke J., Schmidt C. New greedy myopic and existing asymptotic sequential selection procedures: Preliminary empirical results. Proc. 2007 Winter Simulation Conf. (2007) (IEEE, Piscataway, NJ) 289–296Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chick S. E., Branke J., Schmidt C. Sequential sampling to myopically maximize the expected value of information. INFORMS J. Comput. (2010) 22(1):71–80Link, Google Scholar
• DeGroot M. H.Optimal Statistical Decisions (1970) (McGraw Hill, New York) Google Scholar
• De Lara M., Gilotte L. A tight sufficient condition for Radner–Stiglitz nonconcavity in the value of information. J. Econom. Theory (2007) 137(1):696–708Crossref, Google Scholar
• Delquié P. The value of information and intensity of preference. Decision Anal. (2008) 5(3):129–139Link, Google Scholar
• Fatti L. P., Mehrez A., Pachter M. Bounds and properties of the expected value of sample information for a project-selection problem. Naval Res. Logist. (1987) 34(1):141–150Crossref, Google Scholar
• Frazier P. I., Powell W. B. Consistency of sequential Bayesian sampling policies. (2009) . Working paper, Cornell University Ithaca, NYGoogle Scholar
• Frazier P. I., Powell W. B., Dayanik S. A knowledge gradient policy for sequential information collection. SIAM J. Control Optim. (2008) 47(5):2410–2439Crossref, Google Scholar
• Goel A., Khanna S., Null B. The ratio index for budgeted learning, with applications. Proc. Twentieth Annual ACM-SIAM Sympos. Discrete Algorithms (2009) (Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia) 18–27Crossref, Google Scholar
• Guha S., Munagala K. Approximation algorithms for budgeted learning problems. Proc. 39th Annual ACM Sympos. Theory Comput. (2007) (ACM, New York) 104–113Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gupta S. S., Miescke K. J. Bayesian look ahead one-stage sampling allocations for selection of the best population. J. Statist. Planning Inference (1996) 54(2):229–244Crossref, Google Scholar
• Guttman I., Tiao G. C. A Bayesian approach to some best population problems. Ann. Math. Statist. (1964) 35(2):825–835Crossref, Google Scholar
• He D. H., Chick S. E., Chen C. H. Opportunity cost and OCBA selection procedures in ordinal optimization for a fixed number of alternative systems. IEEE Trans. Systems Man Cybernetics C (2007) 37(5):951–961Crossref, Google Scholar
• Heckerman D., Horvitz E., Middleton B. An approximate nonmyopic computation for value of information. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Machine Intelligence (1993) 15(3):292–298Crossref, Google Scholar
• Howard R. A. Information value theory. IEEE Trans. Systems Sci. Cybernetics (1966) 2(1):22–26Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kaelbling L. P., Littman M. L., Cassandra A. R. Planning and acting in partially observable stochastic domains. Artificial Intelligence (1998) 101(1–2):99–134Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kapoor A., Greiner R. Learning and classifying under hard budgets. 16th Eur. Conf. Machine Learn. (2005) (Springer-Verlag, New York) 170–181Crossref, Google Scholar
• Keisler J. Value of information in portfolio decision analysis. Decision Anal. (2004) 1(3):177–189Link, Google Scholar
• Krause A., Guestrin C., Kaelbling L. P., Saffiotti A. Optimal nonmyopic value of information in graphical models—efficient algorithms and theoretical limits. Proc. 19th Internat. Joint Conf. Artificial Intelligence (2005) (Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco) 1339–1345Google Scholar
• Laplace P. S.Théorie Analytique Des Probabilités (1820) (M. V. Courcier, Paris) Google Scholar
• Lizotte D. J., Madani O., Greiner R., Meek C., Kjærulff U. Budgeted learning of naive-Bayes classifiers. Proc. 19th Conf. Uncertainty Artificial Intelligence (2003) (Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco) 378–385Google Scholar
• Mattsson L. G., Voorneveld M., Weibull J. W. Information-constrained discrete choice. (2004) . Working Paper 558, EFI–The Economic Research Institute, Stockholm School of Economics, StockholmGoogle Scholar
• Mehrez A., Sethi A. P. Hierarchical planning of project-selection problems with information purchasing. J. Oper. Res. Soc. (1989) 40(3):267–279Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mehrez A., Stulman A. A note on capital budgeting in the purchase of information. Managerial Decision Econom. (1984) 5(4):251–254Crossref, Google Scholar
• Merrick J. R. W. Bayesian simulation and decision analysis: An expository survey. Decision Anal. (2009) 6(4):222–238Link, Google Scholar
• Moscarini G., Smith L. The law of large demand for information. Econometrica (2002) 70(6):2351–2366Crossref, Google Scholar
• Radner R., Stiglitz J. A nonconcavity in the value of information. Bayesian Models Econom. Theory (1984) 5:33–52Google Scholar
• Raiffa H., Schlaifer R.Applied Statistical Decision Theory (1968) (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA) Google Scholar
• Ross A. M. Useful bounds on the expected maximum of correlated normal random variables. (2003) . Working paper 03W-004, Industrial and Systems Engineering, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PAGoogle Scholar
• Ruben H. A convergent asymptotic expansion for Mill's ratio and the normal probability integral in terms of rational functions. Math. Annalen (1963) 151(4):355–364Crossref, Google Scholar
• Samson D., Wirth A., Rickard J. The value of information from multiple sources of uncertainty in decision analysis. Eur. J. Oper. Res. (1989) 39(3):254–260Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schwartz B.The Paradox of Choice: Why More Is Less (2004) (Harper Perennial, New York) Google Scholar
• Stigler G. J. The economics of information. J. Political Econom. (1961) 69(3):213–225Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tiao G. C., Afonja B. Some Bayesian considerations of the choice of design for ranking, selection and estimation. Ann. Inst. Statist. Math. (1976) 28(1):167–185Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tolpin D., Shimony S. E. Semi-myopic sensing plans for value optimization. (2009) . Arxiv preprint June 17, arXiv:0906.3149Google Scholar
• Weibull J. W., Mattsson L. G., Voorneveld M. Better may be worse: Some monotonicity results and paradoxes in discrete choice under uncertainty. Theory Decision (2007) 63(2):121–151Crossref, Google Scholar
• Yokota F., Thompson K. M. Value of information literature analysis: A review of applications in health risk management. Medical Decision Making (2004) 24(3):287–298Crossref, Google Scholar