An Infeasible Pocket inside a Robustly Attractive Partition

Authors

  • Brian Griffin Author
  • Richard Cook Author
  • Marcus Hayes Author

Abstract

Partition regression and robust ranking can each make a candidate look defensible under their representations. A narrow feasibility failure or an excluded input scenario can overturn that preference. Evaluation should check the candidates favored by the fitted surface under declared protected scenarios, separating local approximation error from the substantive choice of robustness. 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. F. Gao, S. Gao, H. Xiao, and Z. Shi, “Advancing Constrained Ranking and Selection with Regression in Partitioned Domains,” IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 382–391, 2019.
  2. S. Gao, H. Xiao, E. Zhou, and W. Chen, “Robust Ranking and Selection with Optimal Computing Budget Allocation,” Automatica, vol. 81, pp. 30–36, 2017.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. Glasserman, Paul. Monte Carlo Methods in Financial Engineering. Springer, 2004. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-21617-1.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. Rasmussen, Carl Edward, and Christopher K. I. Williams. Gaussian Processes for Machine Learning. MIT Press, 2006. https://gaussianprocess.org/gpml/.

Downloads

Published

2025-10-21