Optimal Computing Budget Allocation for Data-Driven Ranking and Selection

References

• Bechhofer RE (1954) A single-sample multiple decision procedure for ranking means of normal populations with known variances. Ann. Math. Statist. 25:16–39.Google Scholar
• Brauer F (2008) Compartmental models in epidemiology. Brauer F, van den Driessche P, Wu J, eds. Mathematical Epidemiology, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 1945 (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg), 19–79.Google Scholar
• Cakmak S, Wang Y, Gao S, Zhou E (2024) Contextual ranking and selection with Gaussian processes and optimal computing budget allocation. ACM Trans. Modeling Comput. Simulation 34(2):1–24.Google Scholar
• Chen CH, Lee LH (2011) Stochastic Simulation Optimization: An Optimal Computing Budget Allocation, vol. 1 (World Scientific, Singapore).Google Scholar
• Chen Y, Ryzhov IO (2019) Complete expected improvement converges to an optimal budget allocation. Advances Appl. Probab. 51(1):209–235.Google Scholar
• Chen P, Wu K, Ghattas O (2021) Bayesian inference of heterogeneous epidemic models: Application to COVID-19 spread accounting for long-term care facilities. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 385:114020.Google Scholar
• Chen CH, He D, Fu M, Lee LH (2008) Efficient simulation budget allocation for selecting an optimal subset. INFORMS J. Comput. 20(4):579–595.Link, Google Scholar
• Chen CH, Lin J, Yücesan E, Chick SE (2000) Simulation budget allocation for further enhancing the efficiency of ordinal optimization. Discrete Event Dynamic Systems 10(3):251–270.Google Scholar
• Chick SE (2001) Input distribution selection for simulation experiments: Accounting for input uncertainty. Oper. Res. 49(5):744–758.Link, Google Scholar
• Chick SE, Frazier P (2012) Sequential sampling with economics of selection procedures. Management Sci. 58(3):550–569.Link, Google Scholar
• Chick SE, Branke J, Schmidt C (2010) Sequential sampling to myopically maximize the expected value of information. INFORMS J. Comput. 22(1):71–80.Link, Google Scholar
• Corlu CG, Biller B (2013) A subset selection procedure under input parameter uncertainty. Proc. 2013 Winter Simulation Conf. (IEEE, Piscataway, NJ), 463–473.Google Scholar
• Corlu CG, Biller B (2015) Subset selection for simulations accounting for input uncertainty. Proc. 2015 Winter Simulation Conf. (IEEE, Piscataway, NJ), 437–446.Google Scholar
• Corlu CG, Akcay A, Xie W (2020) Stochastic simulation under input uncertainty: A review. Oper. Res. Perspect. 7:100162.Google Scholar
• Dembo A, Zeitouni O, Dinwoodie I (1994) Large deviations techniques and applications. SIAM Rev. 36(2):303–304.Google Scholar
• Fan W, Hong LJ, Zhang X (2020) Distributionally robust selection of the best. Management Sci. 66(1):190–208.Link, Google Scholar
• Frazier PI (2014) A fully sequential elimination procedure for indifference-zone ranking and selection with tight bounds on probability of correct selection. Oper. Res. 62(4):926–942.Link, Google Scholar
• Frazier P, Powell W, Dayanik S (2009) The knowledge-gradient policy for correlated normal beliefs. INFORMS J. Comput. 21(4):599–613.Link, Google Scholar
• Gao S, Chen W (2015) Efficient subset selection for the expected opportunity cost. Automatica J. IFAC 59:19–26.Google Scholar
• Gao S, Chen W, Shi L (2017a) A new budget allocation framework for the expected opportunity cost. Oper. Res. 65(3):787–803.Link, Google Scholar
• Gao S, Du J, Chen CH (2019) Selecting the optimal system design under covariates. 2019 IEEE 15th Internat. Conf. Automation Sci. Engrg. (CASE) (IEEE, Piscataway, NJ).Google Scholar
• Gao S, Xiao H, Zhou E, Chen W (2017b) Robust ranking and selection with optimal computing budget allocation. Automatica J. IFAC 81:30–36.Google Scholar
• Glynn P, Juneja S (2004) A large deviations perspective on ordinal optimization. Proc. 2004 Winter Simulation Conf. (IEEE, Piscataway, NJ), 489–494.Google Scholar
• Gupta S (1956) On a Decision Rule for a Problem in Ranking Means (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC).Google Scholar
• He D, Chick SE, Chen CH (2007) Opportunity cost and OCBA selection procedures in ordinal optimization for a fixed number of alternative systems. IEEE Trans. Systems Man Cybernetics Part C 37(5):951–961.Google Scholar
• Hong LJ, Fan W, Luo J (2021) Review on ranking and selection: A new perspective. Frontiers Engrg. Management 8(3):321–343.Google Scholar
• Hunter SR, Pasupathy R (2013) Optimal sampling laws for stochastically constrained simulation optimization on finite sets. INFORMS J. Comput. 25(3):527–542.Link, Google Scholar
• Jeff Hong L (2006) Fully sequential indifference-zone selection procedures with variance-dependent sampling. Naval Res. Logist. 53(5):464–476.Google Scholar
• Jia QS, Zhou E, Chen CH (2013) Efficient computing budget allocation for finding simplest good designs. IIE Trans. 45(7):736–750.Google Scholar
• Jin X, Li H, Lee LH (2019) Optimal budget allocation in simulation analytics. 2019 IEEE 15th Internat. Conf. Automation Sci. Engrg. (CASE) (IEEE, Piscataway, NJ).Google Scholar
• Kim SH, Nelson BL (2001) A fully sequential procedure for indifference-zone selection in simulation. ACM Trans. Modeling Comput. Simulation 11(3):251–273.Google Scholar
• Kim SH, Nelson BL (2007) Recent advances in ranking and selection. Proc. 2007 Winter Simulation Conf. (IEEE, Piscataway, NJ), 162–172.Google Scholar
• Kim T, Song E (2022) Optimizing input data acquisition for ranking and selection: A view through the most probable best. 2022 Winter Simulation Conf. (WSC) (IEEE, Piscataway, NJ), 2258–2269.Google Scholar
• Lam H, Zhou E (2017) The empirical likelihood approach to quantifying uncertainty in sample average approximation. Oper. Res. Lett. 45(4):301–307.Google Scholar
• Lee LH, Chew EP, Teng S, Goldsman D (2004) Optimal computing budget allocation for multi-objective simulation models. Proc. 2004 Winter Simulation Conf. (IEEE, Piscataway, NJ), 594–602.Google Scholar
• Li Y, Gao S (2021) On the convergence of optimal computing budget allocation algorithms. Proc. 2021 Winter Simulation Conf. (IEEE, Piscataway, NJ), 1–12.Google Scholar
• Lian H (2009) On rates of convergence for posterior distributions under misspecification. Comm. Statist. Theory Methods 38(11):1893–1900.Google Scholar
• Ma S, Henderson SG (2017) An efficient fully sequential selection procedure guaranteeing probably approximately correct selection. Proc. 2017 Winter Simulation Conf. (IEEE, Piscataway, NJ), 2225–2236.Google Scholar
• National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2023) Foundational Research Gaps and Future Directions for Digital Twins (National Academics Press, Washington, DC).Google Scholar
• Ng SH, Chick SE (2006) Reducing parameter uncertainty for stochastic systems. ACM Trans. Modeling Comput. Simulation 16(1):26–51.Google Scholar
• Pasupathy R, Hunter SR, Pujowidianto NA, Lee LH, Chen CH (2014) Stochastically constrained ranking and selection via score. ACM Trans. Modeling Comput. Simulation 25(1):1–26.Google Scholar
• Song E, Nelson BL (2019) Input–output uncertainty comparisons for discrete optimization via simulation. Oper. Res. 67(2):562–576.Abstract, Google Scholar
• Van der Vaart AW (2000) Asymptotic Statistics, vol. 3 (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).Google Scholar
• Wan P (2022) Sensitivity analysis and stochastic optimizations in stochastic activity networks. Dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.Google Scholar
• Wang Y, Zhou E (2022) Fixed-budget ranking and selection with streaming input data. 2022 Winter Simulation Conf. (WSC) (IEEE, Piscataway, NJ), 3027–3038.Google Scholar
• Wu D, Zhou E (2017) Ranking and selection under input uncertainty: A budget allocation formulation. Proc. 2017 Winter Simulation Conf. (IEEE, Piscataway, NJ), 2245–2256.Google Scholar
• Wu D, Wang Y, Zhou E (2022) Data-driven ranking and selection under input uncertainty. Oper. Res. 72(2):781–795.Google Scholar
• Xiao H, Gao S (2018) Simulation budget allocation for selecting the top-m designs with input uncertainty. IEEE Trans. Automatic Control 63(9):3127–3134.Google Scholar
• Xiao H, Gao F, Lee LH (2020) Optimal computing budget allocation for complete ranking with input uncertainty. IISE Trans. 52(5):489–499.Google Scholar
• Xie W, Nelson BL, Barton RR (2014) A Bayesian framework for quantifying uncertainty in stochastic simulation. Oper. Res. 62(6):1439–1452.Link, Google Scholar
• Xu J, Zheng Z, Glynn PW (2020) Joint resource allocation for input data collection and simulation. 2020 Winter Simulation Conf. (WSC) (IEEE, Piscataway, NJ).Google Scholar
• Yan S, Zhou E, Chen CH (2012) Efficient selection of a set of good enough designs with complexity preference. IEEE Trans. Automation Sci. Engrg. 9:596–606.Google Scholar
• Yang H, Morton DP (2022) Optimal crashing of an activity network with disruptions. Math. Program. 194(1–2):1113–1162.Google Scholar
• Zouaoui F, Wilson JR (2004) Accounting for input-model and input-parameter uncertainties in simulation. IIE Trans. 36(11):1135–1151.Google Scholar