A Multi-Objective Preference inside Joint Feasibility
Abstract
Several performance constraints determine admissibility, while robust multiple objectives determine preference among admissible candidates. Evaluation should keep component measures and their dependence visible. Changed tradeoff weights and improved measurements are separate reasons for the selected action to move. A scalar summary cannot resolve an unspecified preference or replace a joint feasibility statement. 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
- W. Liu, S. Gao, and L. H. Lee, “A Multi-Objective Perspective on Robust Ranking and Selection,” Proceedings of the 2017 Winter Simulation Conference, pp. 2116–2127, 2017.
- S. Gao and W. Chen, “Feasibility Determination in Presence of Multiple Performance Measure Constraints,” Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE International Conference on Industrial Technology, pp. 988–992, 2016.
- 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.
- 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.
- Glasserman, Paul. Monte Carlo Methods in Financial Engineering. Springer, 2004. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-21617-1.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Rasmussen, Carl Edward, and Christopher K. I. Williams. Gaussian Processes for Machine Learning. MIT Press, 2006. https://gaussianprocess.org/gpml/.