One Winner or Several Top Designs for the Next Evaluator?

Authors

  • Jacob Reynolds Author
  • Jason Sullivan Author
  • Owen Evans Author

Abstract

A loss bound for one selected design and a top-design retained group solve different tasks. Comparing their resources requires a common later decision and explicit checking costs. Membership mistakes near the group boundary can matter more than interior ordering, while the one-winner bound retains its own assumptions and cannot be treated as realized group loss. 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, “A New Budget Allocation Framework for Selecting Top Simulated Designs,” IIE Transactions, vol. 48, no. 9, pp. 855–863, 2016.
  2. S. Gao and L. Shi, “Selecting the Best Simulated Design with the Expected Opportunity Cost Bound,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 60, no. 10, pp. 2785–2790, 2015.
  3. 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.
  4. Rasmussen, Carl Edward, and Christopher K. I. Williams. Gaussian Processes for Machine Learning. MIT Press, 2006. https://gaussianprocess.org/gpml/.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. Glasserman, Paul. Monte Carlo Methods in Financial Engineering. Springer, 2004. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-21617-1.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.

Downloads

Published

2026-06-13

Issue

Section

Articles