skip to main content

Green Simulation: Reusing the Output of Repeated Experiments

Published:27 October 2017Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

We introduce a new paradigm in simulation experiment design and analysis, called “green simulation,” for the setting in which experiments are performed repeatedly with the same simulation model. Green simulation means reusing outputs from previous experiments to answer the question currently being asked of the simulation model. As one method for green simulation, we propose estimators that reuse outputs from previous experiments by weighting them with likelihood ratios, when parameters of distributions in the simulation model differ across experiments. We analyze convergence of these estimators as more experiments are repeated, while a stochastic process changes the parameters used in each experiment. As another method for green simulation, we propose an estimator based on stochastic kriging. We find that green simulation can reduce mean squared error by more than an order of magnitude in examples involving catastrophe bond pricing and credit risk evaluation.

References

  1. Bruce Ankenman, Barry L. Nelson, and Jeremy Staum. 2010. Stochastic kriging for simulation metamodeling. Operat. Res. 58, 2 (2010), 371--382. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Russell R. Barton, Barry L. Nelson, and Wei Xie. 2014. Quantifying input uncertainty via simulation confidence intervals. INFORMS J. Comput. 26, 1 (2014), 74--87. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Richard J. Beckman and Michael D. McKay. 1987. Monte Carlo estimation under different distributions using the same simulation. Technometrics 29, 2 (1987), 153--160. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. George D. Birkhoff. 1931. Proof of the ergodic theorem. In Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 17. National Academy of Sciences, 656--660. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Eric S. Blake and Ethan J. Gibney. 2011. The Deadliest, Costliest, and Most Intense United States Tropical Cyclones from 1851 to 2010 (and Other Frequently Requested Hurricane Facts). Retrieved July 25, 2017 from http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/dcmi.shtml.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Joshua D. Coval, Jakub W. Jurek, and Erik Stafford. 2009. Economic catastrophe bonds. Amer. Econ. Rev. 99, 3 (June 2009), 628--666. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Angelos Dassios and Ji-Wook Jang. 2003. Pricing of catastrophe reinsurance and derivatives using the Cox process with shot noise intensity. Fin. Stochast. 7, 1 (January 2003), 73--95.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Mingbin Feng and Jeremy Staum. 2015. Green simulation designs for repeated experiments. In Proceedings of the 2015 Winter Simulation Conference, L. Yilmaz, W. K. V. Chan, I. Moon, T. M. K. Roeder, C. Macal, and M. D. Rossetti (Eds.). IEEE Press, Piscataway, NJ, 403--413. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Michael Fu and others. 2015. Handbook of Simulation Optimization. Vol. 216. Springer, New York. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Paul Glasserman and Xingbo Xu. 2014. Robust risk measurement and model risk. Quant. Fin. 14, 1 (2014), 29--58. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Tim Hesterberg. 1988. Advances in Importance Sampling. Ph.D. Dissertation. Stanford University.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Tim Hesterberg. 1995. Weighted average importance sampling and defensive mixture distributions. Technometrics 37, 2 (1995), 185--194. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Jack P. C. Kleijnen and Reuven Y. Rubinstein. 1996. Optimization and sensitivity analysis of computer simulation models by the score function method. Eur. J. Operat. Res. 88 (1996), 413--427. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Stuart A. Klugman, Harry H. Panjer, and Gordon E. Willmot. 2012. Loss Models: From Data to Decisions (4 ed.). John Wiley 8 Sons.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Andrea Laforgia. 1991. Bounds for modified Bessel functions. J. Comput. Appl. Math. 34, 3 (1991), 263--267. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Pierre L’Ecuyer. 1990. A unified view of the IPA, SF, and LR gradient estimation techniques. Manage. Sci. 36, 11 (1990), 1364--1383.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Pierre L’Ecuyer. 1993. Two approaches for estimating the gradient in functional form. In Proceedings of the 25th Conference on Winter Simulation. ACM, New York, 338--346.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Yudell L. Luke. 1972. Inequalities for generalized hypergeometric functions. J. Approx. Theory 5, 1 (1972), 41--65. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Alvaro Maggiar, Andreas Wächter, Irina S. Dolinskaya, and Jeremy Staum. 2015. A Derivative-Free Algorithm for the Optimization of Functions Smoothed via Gaussian Convolution Using Multiple Importance Sampling. Retrieved May 27, 2017 from http://www.optimization-online.org/DB_HTML/2015/07/5017.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Luca Martino, Victor Elvira, David Luengo, and Jukka Corander. 2015. An adaptive population importance sampler: Learning from uncertainty. IEEE Trans. Signal Process. 63, 16 (2015), 4422--4437. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Alexander J. McNeil, Rüdiger Frey, and Paul Embrechts. 2005. Quantitative Risk Management: Concepts, Techniques, and Tools. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Robert C. Merton. 1974. On the pricing of corporate debt: The risk structure of interest rates. J. Fin. 29, 2 (1974), 449--470.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Sean Meyn and Richard L. Tweedie. 2009. Markov Chains and Stochastic Stability (2 ed.). Cambridge University Press, New York, NY. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Munich Re Geo Risks Research. 2015. Loss Events Worldwide 1980--2014, 10 Costliest Events Ordered by Overall Losses. Technical Report. Munich Re.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Esa Nummelin. 2004. General Irreducible Markov Chains and Non-Negative Operators. Cambridge Tracts in Mathematics, Vol. 83. Cambridge University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Art B. Owen and Yi Zhou. 2000. Safe and effective importance sampling. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 95, 449 (2000), 135--143. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Reuven Y. Rubinstein and Alexander Shapiro. 1993. Discrete Event Systems: Sensitivity Analysis and Stochastic Optimization by the Score Function Method. John Wiley 8 Sons, New Jersey.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Peter Salemi, Jeremy Staum, and Barry L. Nelson. 2013. Generalized integrated Brownian fields for simulation metamodeling. In Proceedings of the 2013 Winter Simulation Conference: Simulation: Making Decisions in a Complex World, R. Pasupathy, S.-H. Kim, R. Hill, A. Tolk, and M. E. Kuhl (Eds.). IEEE Press, 543--554. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Jeremy Staum. 2009. Better simulation metamodeling: The why, what, and how of stochastic kriging. In Proceedings of the 2015 Winter Simulation Conference, M. D. Rossetti, B. Johansson R. R. Hill, A. Dunkin, and R. G. Ingalls (Eds.). IEEE Press, Piscataway, NJ, 119--133.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. Eric Veach. 1997. Robust Monte Carlo Methods for Light Transport Simulation. Ph.D. Dissertation. Stanford University.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Eric Veach and Leonidas J. Guibas. 1995. Optimally combining sampling techniques for Monte Carlo rendering. In Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques (SIGGRAPH’95). ACM, New York, NY, 419--428. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Wei Xie, Barry L. Nelson, and Russell R. Barton. 2014. A Bayesian framework for quantifying uncertainty in stochastic simulation. Operat. Res. 62, 6 (2014), 1439--1452. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Green Simulation: Reusing the Output of Repeated Experiments

      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 27, Issue 4
        October 2017
        158 pages
        ISSN:1049-3301
        EISSN:1558-1195
        DOI:10.1145/3155315
        Issue’s Table of Contents

        Copyright © 2017 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: 27 October 2017
        • Accepted: 1 July 2017
        • Revised: 1 May 2017
        • Received: 1 October 2016
        Published in tomacs Volume 27, Issue 4

        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