Input Learning before a Joint Feasibility Claim

Authors

  • Robert Stevens Author
  • Kyle Turner Author
  • Ian Griffin Author

Abstract

Multiple-constraint feasibility and input-uncertain allocation address different evidence gaps. Simulator replications estimate joint outcomes conditional on inputs; new input observations improve the driving distribution. Evaluation should count both and identify the limiting constraint. A narrow conditional simulation interval cannot establish admissibility under an input process it has not represented. 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. S. Gao and W. Chen, “Efficient Feasibility Determination with Multiple Performance Measure Constraints,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 62, no. 1, pp. 113–122, 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

2025-06-11

Issue

Section

Articles