Prediction Combination Where Contextual Recommendations Disagree

Authors

  • Jeremy Stewart Author
  • Richard Wilson Author
  • Grant Richardson Author

Abstract

Ordinal combinations and contextual Gaussian processes should be assessed through action changes rather than average numerical fit alone. Evaluation keeps separate-model recommendations and independently checks consequential disagreements. Sparse contexts expose dependence on borrowing. Agreement after combination does not prove that competing assumptions were resolved or that the chosen action transports to every population. This focused synthesis develops an empirical comparison that preserves the terminal action, observation process, and total verification cost. Its proposed tests are prospective; no new simulation run, model-training result, or intervention effect is reported.

References

S. Cakmak, E. Zhou, and S. Gao, “Contextual Ranking and Selection with Gaussian Processes,” Proceedings of the 2021 Winter Simulation Conference, pp. 1–12, 2021.

S. Zhang, J. Xu, E. Huang, C.-H. Chen, and S. Gao, “Improving Ordinal Transformation through Optimal Combination of Multi-Model Predictions,” Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE International Conference on Industrial Technology, pp. 1545–1549, 2016.

Sacks, Jerome, William J. Welch, Toby J. Mitchell, and Henry P. Wynn. “Design and Analysis of Computer Experiments.” Statistical Science, vol. 4, no. 4, 1989, pp. 409–423. https://doi.org/10.1214/ss/1177012413.

Bertsimas, Dimitris, and Melvyn Sim. “The Price of Robustness.” Operations Research, vol. 52, no. 1, 2004, pp. 35–53. https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.1030.0065.

Campi, Marco C., and Simone Garatti. “The Exact Feasibility of Randomized Solutions of Uncertain Convex Programs.” SIAM Journal on Optimization, vol. 19, no. 3, 2008, pp. 1211–1230. https://doi.org/10.1137/07069821X.

Glasserman, Paul. Monte Carlo Methods in Financial Engineering. Springer, 2004. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-21617-1.

Ankenman, Bruce, Barry L. Nelson, and Jeremy Staum. “Stochastic Kriging for Simulation Metamodeling.” Operations Research, vol. 58, no. 2, 2010, pp. 371–382. https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.1090.0754.

Kim, Seong-Hee, and Barry L. Nelson. “A Fully Sequential Procedure for Indifference-Zone Selection in Simulation.” ACM Transactions on Modeling and Computer Simulation, vol. 11, no. 3, 2001, pp. 251–273. https://doi.org/10.1145/502109.502111.

Chick, Stephen E., and Koichiro Inoue. “New Two-Stage and Sequential Procedures for Selecting the Best Simulated System.” Operations Research, vol. 49, no. 5, 2001, pp. 732–743. https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.49.5.732.10615.

Frazier, Peter I., Warren B. Powell, and Savas Dayanik. “A Knowledge-Gradient Policy for Sequential Information Collection.” SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, vol. 47, no. 5, 2008, pp. 2410–2439. https://doi.org/10.1137/070693424.

Downloads

Published

2026-03-07

Issue

Section

Articles