A Framework for Selecting a Selection Procedure
For many discrete simulation optimization applications, it is often difficult to decide which Ranking and Selection (R&S) procedure to use. To efficiently compare R&S procedures, we present a three-layer performance evaluation process. We show that the two most popular performance formulations, namely the Bayesian formulation and the indifference zone formulation, have a common representation analogous to convex risk measures used in mathematical finance. We then specify how a decision maker can impose a performance requirement on R&S procedures that is more adequate for her risk attitude than the indifference zone or the Bayesian performance requirements. Such a performance requirement partitions the space of R&S procedures into acceptable and nonacceptable procedures. The minimal computational budget required for a procedure to become acceptable introduces an easy-to-interpret preference order on the set of R&S policies. We demonstrate with a numerical example how the introduced framework can be used to guide the choice of selection procedure in practice.
ranking and selection bayesian indifference zone convex risk measures robustness analysis decision theory acceptable procedures