skip to main content
article
Free Access

Robust multiple comparisons under common random numbers

Published:01 July 1993Publication History
First page image

References

  1. Box, G. E.P. 1954. Some theorems on quadratic forms apphed in the study of analysis of variance problems, I. Effect of inequality of variance m the one-way classification. An. Math. Stat. 25, 290 302.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. GRAYBILL, F.A. 1969. Matrices with Apphcatlons in Stutzstzcs. Wadsworth, Belmont, Calif.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. GRIEVE, A. P., AND AG, C.-G. 1984 Tests of sphericity of normal distributions and the analys~s of repeated measures designs Psychometrzka 49, 2, 257-267Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. HOCHBERG, Y., AND TAMHANE, A.C. 1987. Multiple Comparison Procedures. John Wiley, New York. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. HSU~ J. C., AND NELSON, B L 1988. Optimization over a finite number of system designs with one-stage samphng and multiple comparisons with the best. In Proceedings of the 1988 Winter Szmulatmn Conference, M. A. Abrams, P. L. Haigh, J. C Comfort, Eds. ACM/IEEE, New York, 451 457. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. MARSAGL1A, G., AND OLKIN, I. 1984 Generating correlation matmces. SIAM. Scz Star. Cornput 5, 470 475.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. NELSON, B. L. 1992. Common random numbers and multiple comparisons in s~mulation analysis. In Proceed~n~'s of the 1st Industrlal Engineering Research Conference. G Klutke. D. A. Mitta, B. O. Nnaji, L. M. Seiford, Eds IIE, 463 466.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. NELSON, B.L. 1990. Control variate remedies. Oper. Res. 38, 6, 974 992. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. NELSON, B. L., AND HSU, J C. 1993. Contro}-varlate models of common random numbers for multiple comparisons with the best. Manage Sci To be pubhshed. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. NOZARI, A., ARNOLD, S., AND PEGDEN, C. 1987. Statistical analys~s for use with the Schruben and Margohn correlation induction strategy. Oper. Res. 35, 1, 127-139 Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. RAO, C. R 1973. Linear Stati~tzcal Inference and zts Applicatzons John Wiley, New York.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. SCHRUBEN, L., AND MARGOLIN, B. 1978. Pseudorandom number assignment in statistically designed simulation and distribution sampling experiments, d. Am. Star. Assoc. 73, 504-525.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. TEW, J. D., AND WILSON, J. R. 1993. Estimating simulation metamodels using combined correlation-based variance reduction techniques, lie Trans. To be published.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. TONG, Y. 1980. Probability llzequalztzes i~ Mu{tzvar~ate Distributtons. Academic Press, New York.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. WANG, H.-L. 1992. Multiple comparisons procedures in repeated measures designs. Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. of Statistics, The Ohio State Univ., Columbus, Ohio.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. YANG, W., AND NELSON, B.L. 1991. Using common random numbers and control variates in multiple-comparison procedures. Oper. Res. 39, 4, 583 591.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Robust multiple comparisons under common random numbers

      Recommendations

      Reviews

      R. Sambasiva Rao

      One of the objectives of simulation experiments is to compare the expected performance of different systems. In this context, induced positive dependence across the responses (simulation outputs) and control-variate models have been in vogue. As a result of the inadequacies of these procedures, analysis of repeated-measures (replicate) experiments is proposed. The outcome of this analysis is useful in the investigation of simulation studies that employ common random numbers (CRN). CRN is a variance reduction technique that reduces the variance of estimators of the differences between the expected performance of two or more systems. Compound symmetry, a specific case of sphericity, is induced in the covariance structure through CRN. Nelson uses the multiple comparisons with the best (MCB) method, which is a simultaneous statistical inference procedure. The example discussed in detail is the minimization of expected cost per period over a planning horizon of 30 periods for five inventory policies. In this simulated experiment, the standardized average is the control variable, and the experiment is repeated with 30 replications for each of the 30 periods. Based on these results, 95 percent MCB is calculated. The entire experiment was repeated 1000 times to estimate the probability of the coverage. As the system has no control variables, the control-variate model reduces to one-way analysis of the variance model. The advantage of MCB intervals obtained under the sphericity assumption is that they are robust to departures from sphericity. The inferences drawn hold equally well for other control variate systems.

      Access critical reviews of Computing literature here

      Become a reviewer for Computing Reviews.

      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

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader