A Planning Probability and a Partially Observed Defect Process

Authors

  • Jonathan Johnston Author
  • Patrick Porter Author
  • James Pearson Author

Abstract

Plan-improvement probability refers to a defined numerical event, while partial inspection controls which defects become visible. Both require an explicit denominator and independent verification. The comparison should preserve planning objectives or spatial coverage and report remaining unobserved outcomes. A favorable probability cannot become a clinical effect, and detected defects cannot become residual population risk. 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. M. Qin, Z. Shi, W. Chen, S. Gao, and L. Shi, “Wafer Defect Inspection Optimization with Partial Coverage: A Numerical Approach,” IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 1916–1927, 2020.
  2. S. Gao, X. Zhang, and L. Shi, “Evaluation of Improvement Probability for IMRT Plans,” Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE International Conference on Automation Science and Engineering, pp. 474–479, 2013.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. Glasserman, Paul. Monte Carlo Methods in Financial Engineering. Springer, 2004. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-21617-1.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.

Downloads

Published

2025-11-19