skip to main content
research-article

Ranking and Selection: A New Sequential Bayesian Procedure for Use with Common Random Numbers

Authors Info & Claims
Published:24 January 2019Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

We introduce a new sampling scheme for selecting the best alternative out of a given set of systems that are evaluated with respect to their expected performances. We assume that the systems are simulated on a computer and that a joint observation of all systems has a multivariate normal distribution with unknown mean and unknown covariance matrix. In particular, the observations of the systems may be stochastically dependent as is the case if common random numbers are used for simulation.

In each iteration of the algorithm, we allocate a fixed budget of simulation runs to the alternatives. We use a Bayesian set-up with a noninformative prior distribution and derive a new closed-form approximation for the posterior distributions that allows provision of a lower bound for the posterior probability of a correct selection (PCS). Iterations are continued until this lower bound is greater than 1−α for a given α. We also introduce a new allocation strategy that allocates the available budget according to posterior error probabilities. Our procedure needs no additional prior parameters and can cope with different types of ranking and selection tasks.

Our numerical experiments show that our strategy is superior to other procedures from the literature, namely, KN++ and Pluck. In all of our test scenarios, these procedures needed more observation and/or had an empirical PCS below the required 1−α. Our procedure always had its empirical PCS above 1−α, underlining the practicability of our approximation of the posterior distribution.

References

  1. Jürgen Branke, Stephen E. Chick, and Christian Schmidt. 2007. Selecting a selection procedure. Management Science 53, 12 (2007), 1916--1932. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Chun-Hung Chen, Hsiao-Chang Chen, and Liyi Dai. 1996. A gradient approach for smartly allocating computing budget for discrete event simulation. In Proceedings of the 1996 Winter Simulation Conference, John M. Charnes, Douglas J. Morrice, Daniel T. Brunner, and James J. Swain (Eds.). IEEE, 398--405. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Chun-Hung Chen, Donghai He, Michael Fu, and Loo Hay Lee. 2008. Efficient simulation budget allocation for selecting an optimal subset. INFORMS Journal on Computing 20, 4 (2008), 579--595.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Chun-Hung Chen and Loo Hay Lee. 2010. Stochastic Simulation Optimization: An Optimal Computing Budget Allocation. World Scientific Publishing Company. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Chun-Hung Chen, Jianwu Lin, Enver Yücesan, and Stephen E. Chick. 2000. Simulation budget allocation for further enhancing the efficiency of ordinal optimization. Discrete Event Dynamic Systems 10, 3 (2000), 251--270. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Chun-Hung Chen and Enver Yucesan. 2005. An alternative simulation budget allocation scheme for efficient simulation. International Journal of Simulation and Process Modelling 1, 1 (2005), 49--57.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Hsiao-Chang Chen, Liyi Dai, Chun-Hung Chen, and Enver Yücesan. 1997. New development of optimal computing budget allocation for discrete event simulation. In Proceedings of the 1997 Winter Simulation Conference, Sigrun Andradottir, Kevin J. Healy, David H. Withers, and Barry L. Nelson (Eds.). IEEE, 334--341. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Stephen E. Chick and Koichiro Inoue. 2001a. New procedures to select the best simulated system using common random numbers. Management Science 47, 8 (2001), 1133--1149. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Stephen E. Chick and Koichiro Inoue. 2001b. New two-stage and sequential procedures for selecting the best simulated system. Operations Research 49, 5 (2001), 732--743. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Morris H. DeGroot. 2004. Optimal Statistical Decisions. John Wiley 8 Sons.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Francesca Dominici, Giovanni Parmigiani, and Merlise Clyde. 2000. Conjugate analysis of multivariate normal data with incomplete observations. Canadian Journal of Statistics 28, 3 (2000), 533--550.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Marco Dorigo and Thomas Stützle. 2010. Ant colony optimization: Overview and recent advances. In Handbook of Metaheuristics. Springer, 227--263.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Richard L. Dykstra. 1970. Establishing the positive definiteness of the sample covariance matrix. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics 41, 6 (1970), 2153--2154.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Peter I. Frazier, Jing Xie, and Stephen E. Chick. 2011. Value of information methods for pairwise sampling with correlations. In Proceedings of the Winter Simulation Conference. Winter Simulation Conference, 3979--3991. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Michael C. Fu, Jian-Qiang Hu, Chun-Hung Chen, and Xiaoping Xiong. 2007. Simulation allocation for determining the best design in the presence of correlated sampling. INFORMS Journal on Computing 19, 1 (2007), 101--111. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Siyang Gao, Hui Xiao, Enlu Zhou, and Weiwei Chen. 2016. Optimal computing budget allocation with input uncertainty. In Proceedings of the 2016 Winter Simulation Conference. IEEE Press, 839--846. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Andrew Gelman, John B. Carlin, Hal S. Stern, and Donald B. Rubin. 2004. Bayesian Data Analysis (2nd ed.). Chapman 8 Hall/CRC.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Paul Glasserman and David D. Yao. 1992. Some guidelines and guarantees for common random numbers. Management Science 38, 6 (1992), 884--908.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Peter Glynn and Sandeep Juneja. 2004. A large deviations perspective on ordinal optimization. In Proceedings of the 2004 Winter Simulation Conference, Ricki G. Ingalls, Manuel D. Rossetti, Jeffrey S. Smith, and Brett A. Peters (Eds.). Vol. 1. IEEE, 577--585. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Peter Glynn and Sandeep Juneja. 2015. Ordinal optimization-empirical large deviations rate estimators, and stochastic multi-armed bandits. arXiv preprint arXiv:1507.04564 (2015).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Björn Görder. 2012. Simulationsbasierte Optimierung mit statistischen Ranking- und Selektionsverfahren. Ph.D. Dissertation (in German). TU Clausthal, Lower Saxony, Germany.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. S.-H. Kim and B. L. Nelson. 2006a. Selecting the best system. In Simulation Handbooks in Operations Research and Management Science, S. G. Henderson and B. L. Nelson (Eds.). Elsevier, 501--532.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Seong-Hee Kim and Barry L. Nelson. 2006b. On the asymptotic validity of fully sequential selection procedures for steady-state simulation. Operations Research 54, 3 (2006), 475--488. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Soonhui Lee and Barry L. Nelson. 2014. Bootstrap ranking 8 selection revisited. In Proceedings of the 2014 Winter Simulation Conference. IEEE Press, 3857--3868. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Soonhui Lee and Barry L. Nelson. 2016. General-purpose ranking and selection for computer simulation. IIE Transactions 48, 6 (2016), 555--564.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Jun Luo, L. Jeff Hong, Barry L. Nelson, and Yang Wu. 2015. Fully sequential procedures for large-scale ranking-and-selection problems in parallel computing environments. Operations Research 63, 5 (2015), 1177--1194.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Barry L. Nelson and Frank J. Matejcik. 1995. Using common random numbers for indifference-zone selection and multiple comparisons in simulation. Management Science 41, 12 (1995), 1935--1945.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Eric C. Ni, Shane G. Henderson, and Susan R. Hunter. 2014. A comparison of two parallel ranking and selection procedures. In Proceedings of the 2014 Winter Simulation Conference. IEEE Press, 3761--3772. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Yijie Peng, Chun-Hung Chen, Michael Fu, and Jian-Qiang Hu. 2013. Efficient simulation resource sharing and allocation for selecting the best. IEEE Trans. Automat. Control 58 (2013), 1017--1023.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. Y. Peng, E. K. P. Chong, C.-H. Chen, and M. C. Fu. 2017. Ranking and selection as stochastic control. ArXiv E-prints (Oct. 2017). arxiv:cs.LG/1710.02619Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Huashuai Qu, Ilya O. Ryzhov, and Michael C. Fu. 2012. Ranking and selection with unknown correlation structures. In Proceedings of the Winter Simulation Conference. Winter Simulation Conference, 12. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Huashuai Qu, Ilya O. Ryzhov, Michael C. Fu, and Zi Ding. 2015. Sequential selection with unknown correlation structures. Operations Research 63, 4 (2015), 931--948.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Colin R. Reeves. 2010. Genetic algorithms. In Handbook of Metaheuristics. Springer, 109--139.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Daniel Russo. 2016. Simple Bayesian algorithms for best arm identification. In 29th Annual Conference on Learning Theory (Proceedings of Machine Learning Research), Vitaly Feldman, Alexander Rakhlin, and Ohad Shamir (Eds.), Vol. 49. PMLR, Columbia University, New York, New York, 1417--1418. http://proceedings.mlr.press/v49/russo16.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Ilya O. Ryzhov. 2015. Approximate Bayesian inference for simulation and optimization. In Modeling and Optimization: Theory and Applications. Springer, 1--28.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Joseph L. Schafer. 1997. Analysis of Incomplete Multivariate Data. CRC Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Christian Schmidt, Jürgen Branke, and Stephen E. Chick. 2006. Integrating techniques from statistical ranking into evolutionary algorithms. In Applications of Evolutionary Computing, Franz Rothlauf et al. (Eds.). 752--763. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. James R. Swisher, Sheldon H. Jacobson, and Enver Yücesan. 2003. Discrete-event simulation optimization using ranking, selection, and multiple comparison procedures: A survey. ACM Transactions on Modeling and Computer Simulation 13, 2 (2003), 134--154. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Zijun Wu and Michael Kolonko. 2014. Asymptotic properties of a generalized cross-entropy optimization algorithm. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 18, 5 (2014), 658--673.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. Jing Xie, Peter I. Frazier, and Stephen E. Chick. 2016. Bayesian optimization via simulation with pairwise sampling and correlated prior beliefs. Operations Research 64, 2 (2016), 542--559.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Qiong Zhang and Yongjia Song. 2016. Moment matching based conjugacy approximation for Bayesian ranking and selection. arXiv preprint arXiv:1610.09400 (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Ranking and Selection: A New Sequential Bayesian Procedure for Use with Common Random Numbers

            Recommendations

            Comments

            Login options

            Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

            Sign in

            Full Access

            • Published in

              cover image ACM Transactions on Modeling and Computer Simulation
              ACM Transactions on Modeling and Computer Simulation  Volume 29, Issue 1
              January 2019
              149 pages
              ISSN:1049-3301
              EISSN:1558-1195
              DOI:10.1145/3309768
              Issue’s Table of Contents

              Copyright © 2019 ACM

              Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

              Publisher

              Association for Computing Machinery

              New York, NY, United States

              Publication History

              • Published: 24 January 2019
              • Accepted: 1 July 2018
              • Revised: 1 June 2018
              • Received: 1 May 2017
              Published in tomacs Volume 29, Issue 1

              Permissions

              Request permissions about this article.

              Request Permissions

              Check for updates

              Qualifiers

              • research-article
              • Research
              • Refereed

            PDF Format

            View or Download as a PDF file.

            PDF

            eReader

            View online with eReader.

            eReader

            HTML Format

            View this article in HTML Format .

            View HTML Format