Skip to main content
Log in

Evaluating alternative system configurations using simulation: A nonparametric approach

  • Published:
Annals of Operations Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The real utility of simulation lies in comparing different alternatives that might represent competing system designs. Conventional statistical techniques are not directly applicable to the analysis of simulation output data in the evaluation of competing alternatives since the usual assumptions of normality and common variance are difficult to justify in simulation experiments. This paper revisits a known nonparametric test whose application has recently become feasible due to considerable increases in computing power:randomization tests assess the significance of the observed value of the test statistic by evaluating different permutations of the data. The procedure only requires invariance of the data under all permutations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. P.J. Bickel and K.A. Doksum,Mathematical Statistics: Basic Ideas and Selected Topics (Holden-Day, Oakland, 1977).

    Google Scholar 

  2. G.E.P. Box and S.L. Andersen, Permutation theory in the derivation of robust criteria and the study of departures from assumptions, J. Roy. Statist. Soc. Series B 17(1955)1–34.

    Google Scholar 

  3. G.M. Clark, Tutorial: Analysis of simulation output to compare alternatives, in:Proc. Winter Simulation Conf. (1988) pp. 19–24.

  4. G.M. Clark and W. Yang, A Bonferroni selection procedure when using common random numbers with unknown variances, in:Proc. Winter Simulation Conf. (1986) pp. 313–315.

  5. B.J. Cooley and J.W. Cooley, Data analysis for simulation experiments: Application of a distribution-free multiple comparisons procedure, Dec. Sci. 11(1980)482–492.

    Google Scholar 

  6. E.J. Dudewicz, Statistics in simulation: How to design for selecting the best alternative, in:Proc. Winter Conf. (1976).

  7. E.J. Dudewicz and S.R. Dalal, Allocations of observations in ranking and selection with unequal variances, Sankhya-B. 37(1975)28–78.

    Google Scholar 

  8. B. Efron, Bootstrap methods: Another look at the jacknife, Ann. Statist. 7(1979)1–26.

    Google Scholar 

  9. B. Efron and R. Tibshirani, Bootstrap methods for standard errors, confidence intervals, and other measures of statistical accuracy, Statist. Sci. 1(1984)54–77.

    Google Scholar 

  10. R.A. Fisher,Statistical Methods for Research Workers (Oliver & Boyd, Edinburgh, 1925).

    Google Scholar 

  11. R.A. Fisher,The Design of Experiments (Oliver & Boyd, Edinburgh, 1935).

    Google Scholar 

  12. R.V. Foutz, A method for constructing exact tests from test statistics that have unknown null distributions, J. Statist. Comp. Simul. 10(1980)187–193.

    Google Scholar 

  13. D. Goldsman, Ranking and selection in simulation, in:Proc. Winter Simulation Conf. (1983) pp. 387–393.

  14. Y. Hochberg and A.C. Tamhane,Multiple Comparisons Procedures (Wiley, New York, 1987).

    Google Scholar 

  15. W. Hoeffding, The large sample power of tests based on permutations of observations, Ann. Math. Statist. 23(1952)169–192.

    Google Scholar 

  16. J.C. Hsu, Ranking and selection and multiple comparisons with the best, in:Design of Experiments: Ranking and Selection, ed. Santner and Tamhane (Marcel Dekker, New York, 1984) chapter 3.

    Google Scholar 

  17. J.C. Hsu and B.L. Nelson, Optimization over a finite number of system designs with one-stage sampling and multiple comparisons with the best, in:Proc. Winter Simulation Conf. (1988) pp. 451–457.

  18. J.V. Jucker and J.G. Gomez, Policy-comparing simulation experiments: Design and analysis, Dec. Sci. 6(1975)631–645.

    Google Scholar 

  19. J.P.C. Kleijnen,Statistical Tools for Simulation Practitioners (Marcel Dekker, New York, 1987).

    Google Scholar 

  20. A.M. Law and W.D. Kelton,Simulation Modeling and Analysis, 2nd ed. (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1991).

    Google Scholar 

  21. P.A.W. Lewis and A.J. Orav,Simulation Methodology for Statisticians, Operations Analysts, and Engineers, Vol. 1 (Wadsworth & Brooks/Cole, Pacific Grove, 1989).

    Google Scholar 

  22. E.W. Noreen,Computer Intensive Methods for Testing Hypotheses: An Introduction (Wiley, New York, 1989)

    Google Scholar 

  23. M. Pagano and D. Tritchler, On obtaining permutation distributions in polynomial time, J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 78(1983)435–440.

    Google Scholar 

  24. H. Scheffé,The Analysis of Variance (Wiley, New York, 1959).

    Google Scholar 

  25. C. Spino and M. Pagano, Efficient calculation of the permutation distribution of trimmed means, J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 86(1991)729–737.

    Google Scholar 

  26. L.E. Toothaker,Multiple Comparisons for Researchers (Sage Pub., Newbury Park, 1991).

    Google Scholar 

  27. D. Tritchler, On inverting permutation tests, J. Amer. Statist Assoc. 79(1984)200–207.

    Google Scholar 

  28. B.L. Welch, The significance of the difference between two means when the population variances are unequal, Biometrika 25(1938)350–362.

    Google Scholar 

  29. W. Yang and B.L. Nelson, Optimization using common random numbers, control variates and multiple comparisons with the best, in:Proc. Winter Simulation Conf. (1989) pp. 444–449.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Yücesan, E. Evaluating alternative system configurations using simulation: A nonparametric approach. Ann Oper Res 53, 471–484 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02136839

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02136839

Keywords

Navigation