Article

Ranking and selection with multiple "targets"

Authors:

Douglas J. Morrice,

John C. ButlerAuthors Info & Claims

WSC '06: Proceedings of the 38th conference on Winter simulation

Pages 222 - 230

Published: 03 December 2006 Publication History

Abstract

Managers of large industrial projects often measure performance by multiple attributes. In previous work, we developed a multiattribute ranking and selection procedure to allow tradeoffs between conflicting objectives. More recent developments in ranking and selection incorporate the notion of "constraints", or "targets", that must be satisfied. In this paper we demonstrate how some forms of single attribute utility functions can be used to create a target or constraint. We re-analyze our original problem under the assumption that there are unacceptable levels for some attributes.

References

[1]

Abbas, A. E., and R. A. Howard. 2005. Attribute dominance utility. Decision Analysis, 2, 185--206.

Digital Library

[2]

Abbas, A. E., and J. E. Matheson. 2005. Normative targetbased decision making. Managerial and Decision Economics, 26, 373--385.

[3]

Andradóttir, S., D. Goldsman, and S. Kim. 2005. Finding the best in the presence of multiple constraint. In Proceedings of the 2005 Winter Simulation Conference. M. E. Kuhl, N. M. Steiger, F. B. Armstrong, and J. A. Jones, eds. The Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, Piscataway, New Jersey, 732--738.

Digital Library

[4]

Batur, D., and S. Kim. 2005. Procedures for feasibility detection in the presence of multiple constraints. In Proceedings of the 2005 Winter Simulation Conference. M. E. Kuhl, N. M. Steiger, F. B. Armstrong, and J. A. Jones, eds. The Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, Piscataway, New Jersey, 692--698.

Digital Library

[5]

Bordley, R. F., and C. W. Kirkwood. 2004. Multiattribute preference analysis with performance targets. Operations Research, 52, 823--0835.

Digital Library

[6]

Bordley, R., and M. LiCalzi. 2000. Decision analysis using targets instead of utility functions. Decisions in Economics and Finance, 23, 53--74.

[7]

Branke, J., S. E. Chick, C. Schmidt. 2005. Sensitivity analysis in ranking and selection for multiple performance measures. In Proceedings of the 2005 Winter Simulation Conference. M. E. Kuhl, N. M. Steiger, F. B. Armstrong, and J. A. Jones, eds. The Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, Piscataway, New Jersey, 708--717.

[8]

Clemen, R. T. 1991. Making Hard Decisions. PWS Kent Publishing, Boston.

[9]

Dobrin, M. D., C. H. Savit. 1988. Introduction to Geophysical Prospecting. McGraw-Hill, New York.

[10]

Gupta, S. S., S. Panchapakesan. 1979. Multiple Decision Procedures: Theory and Methodology of Selecting and Ranking Populations. Wiley: New York.

Digital Library

[11]

Hammond, J. S., R. L. Keeney, and H. Raiffa. 1998. Even swaps: A rational method for making trade-offs. Harvard Business Review (March-April 1998), 137--149.

[12]

Keeney, R. L. 1992. Value-Focused Thinking: A Path to Creative Decisionmaking, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

[13]

Keeney, R. L. 2002. Common mistakes in making value trade-offs. Operations Research, 50, 935--945.

Digital Library

[14]

Keeney, R. L., H. Raiffa. 1976. Decisions with Multiple Objectives. Wiley, New York.

[15]

Keeney, R. L., and D. von Winterfeldt. 1991. Eliciting probabilities from experts in complex technical problems. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 38, 191--201.

[16]

Kim, S.-H., and B. L. Nelson. 2001. A fully sequential procedure for indifference-zone selection in simulation. ACM TOMACS 11 251--273.

Digital Library

[17]

Mullarkey, P., G. Butler, S. Gavirneni, D. Morrice. 2006. Schlumberger uses simulation in bidding and executing land seismic surveys. To appear in Interfaces.

[18]

Rinott, Y. 1978. On two-stage procedures and related probability-inequalities. Communications of Statistics: Theory and Methods A8, 799--811.

[19]

Tversky, A. 1972. Elimination by aspects: A theory of choice. Psych. Rev., 79, 281--299.

[20]

von Neumann, J. and O. Morgenstern. 1947. Theory of Games and Economic Behavior, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.

Cited By

Xiao HChen HLee L(2017)Optimal computing budget allocation for ranking the top designs with stochastic constraintsProceedings of the 2017 Winter Simulation Conference10.5555/3242181.3242367(1-7)Online publication date: 3-Dec-2017
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/3242181.3242367
Healey CAndradóttir SKim S(2014)Selection Procedures for Simulations with Multiple Constraints under Independent and Correlated SamplingACM Transactions on Modeling and Computer Simulation10.1145/256792124:3(1-25)Online publication date: 1-May-2014
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2567921
Pujowidianto NLee LChen CHill RKuhl M(2013)Minimizing opportunity cost in selecting the best feasible designProceedings of the 2013 Winter Simulation Conference: Simulation: Making Decisions in a Complex World10.5555/2675983.2676098(898-907)Online publication date: 8-Dec-2013
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/2675983.2676098
Show More Cited By

Ranking and selection with multiple "targets"

Recommendations

Local context selection for outlier ranking in graphs with multiple numeric node attributes
SSDBM '14: Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Scientific and Statistical Database Management

Outlier ranking aims at the distinction between exceptional outliers and regular objects by measuring deviation of individual objects. In graphs with multiple numeric attributes, not all the attributes are relevant or show dependencies with the graph ...
Improving incremental wrapper-based feature subset selection by using re-ranking
IEA/AIE'10: Proceedings of the 23rd international conference on Industrial engineering and other applications of applied intelligent systems - Volume Part I

This paper deals with the problem of supervised wrapperbased feature subset selection in datasets with a very large number of attributes. In such datasets sophisticated search algorithms like beam search, branch and bound, best first, genetic algorithms,...
Ranking model selection and fusion for effective microblog search
SoMeRA '14: Proceedings of the first international workshop on Social media retrieval and analysis

Re-ranking was shown to have positive impact on the effectiveness for microblog search. Yet existing approaches mostly focused on using a single ranker to learn some better ranking function with respect to various relevance features. Given various ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences

WSC '06: Proceedings of the 38th conference on Winter simulation

December 2006

2429 pages

ISBN:1424405017

Editors:
L. Felipe Perrone
Bucknell University
,
Barry G. Lawson
University of Richmond
,
Jason Liu
Colorado School of Mines
,
Frederick P. Wieland
Sensis Corporation
,
General Chair:
David Nicol
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
,
Program Chair:
Richard Fujimoto
College of Computing, Georgia Tech

Sponsors

IIE: Institute of Industrial Engineers
ASA: American Statistical Association
IEICE ESS: Institute of Electronics, Information and Communication Engineers, Engineering Sciences Society
IEEE-CS\DATC: The IEEE Computer Society
SIGSIM: ACM Special Interest Group on Simulation and Modeling
NIST: National Institute of Standards and Technology
(SCS): The Society for Modeling and Simulation International
INFORMS-CS: Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences-College on Simulation

Publisher

Winter Simulation Conference

Publication History

Published: 03 December 2006

Check for updates

Qualifiers

Article

Conference

WSC06

Sponsor:

IIE
ASA
IEICE ESS
IEEE-CS\DATC
SIGSIM
NIST
(SCS)
INFORMS-CS

WSC06: Winter Simulation Conference 2006

December 3 - 6, 2006

California, Monterey

Acceptance Rates

WSC '06 Paper Acceptance Rate 177 of 252 submissions, 70%;

Overall Acceptance Rate 3,413 of 5,075 submissions, 67%

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

7
Total Citations
View Citations
163
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)0
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0

Reflects downloads up to 07 Mar 2025

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Xiao HChen HLee L(2017)Optimal computing budget allocation for ranking the top designs with stochastic constraintsProceedings of the 2017 Winter Simulation Conference10.5555/3242181.3242367(1-7)Online publication date: 3-Dec-2017
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/3242181.3242367
Healey CAndradóttir SKim S(2014)Selection Procedures for Simulations with Multiple Constraints under Independent and Correlated SamplingACM Transactions on Modeling and Computer Simulation10.1145/256792124:3(1-25)Online publication date: 1-May-2014
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2567921
Pujowidianto NLee LChen CHill RKuhl M(2013)Minimizing opportunity cost in selecting the best feasible designProceedings of the 2013 Winter Simulation Conference: Simulation: Making Decisions in a Complex World10.5555/2675983.2676098(898-907)Online publication date: 8-Dec-2013
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/2675983.2676098
Frazier PKazachkov A(2011)Guessing preferencesProceedings of the Winter Simulation Conference10.5555/2431518.2432034(4324-4336)Online publication date: 11-Dec-2011
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/2431518.2432034
Butler JMerrick JMorrice D(2011)Assessing oil spill risk in port tanker operations using a multiattribute utility approach to ranking and selectionProceedings of the Winter Simulation Conference10.5555/2431518.2431718(1696-1707)Online publication date: 11-Dec-2011
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/2431518.2431718
Healey CAndradóttir SKim SYücesan E(2010)A minimal switching procedure for constrained ranking and selectionProceedings of the Winter Simulation Conference10.5555/2433508.2433646(1145-1151)Online publication date: 5-Dec-2010
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/2433508.2433646
Pujowidianto NLee LChen CYap CDunkin AIngalls R(2009)Optimal computing budget allocation for constrained optimizationWinter Simulation Conference10.5555/1995456.1995546(584-589)Online publication date: 13-Dec-2009
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/1995456.1995546

View Options

Login options

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

Full Access

Get this Publication

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Figures

Tables

Media

View Table of Conten