Simulation and sensitivity estimation

  • Georg Ch. Pflug
Part of the The Kluwer International Series in Engineering and Computer Science book series (SECS, volume 373)


We will use the word simulation exclusively for the technique to mimic a random process on a computer. Since a computer is a deterministic machine, true randomness cannot be produced. Instead, one uses algorithms, which produce values which are (to a certain extent) indistinguishable from realizations of genuine random processes.


Markov Process Score Function Unbiased Estimate Variance Reduction Discrete Event System 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    Bremaud P. and Vasquez-Abad F. (1992). On the pathwise computation of derivatives with respect to the rate of a point process: the phantom RPA method. Questa 10, 249–270.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Bremaud P. (1992). Maximal coupling and rare perturbation sensitivity analysis. Queueing Systems 11, 307–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    Cottrell M., Fort J.-C., Malgouyres G. (1983). Large deviations and rare events in the study of stochastic algorithms. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 28 (11), 907–920.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    Devroye L. (1986). Non-uniform random variate generation. Springer Verlag, New York.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    Devroye L. (1990). Coupled samples in simulation. Operations Research 38, 115–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    Glasserman P. (1991). Gradient estimation via Perturbation Analysis. Kluwer Academic, Boston.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Glasserman P. (1991). Structural conditions for perturbation analysis derivative estimation for finite time performance indices. Operations Research 39, 5, 724–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    Glasserman P. and Yao D. (1994) Monotone structures in Discrete—Event Systems. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    Glynn P.W. (1986). Stochastic Approximation for Monte Carlo Optimization. Proceedings of the 1986 Winter Simulation Conference. The Society for Computer Simulation, 356–364.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    Glynn P.W. and Iglehart, D.L. (1988). Simulation methods for queues: an overview. Queuing Systems 3, 221–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    Gong W.B. and Ho Y.C. (1988). Smoothed (Conditional) perturbation Analysis of Discrete Event Dynamical Systems. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, 32 (10), 858–866.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    Ermoliev Y. M. and Gaivoronski A. A. (1991). Stochastic quasigradient methods for optimization of discrete event systems. Annals of Operations Research 39 (1–4), 1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    Ho Y.C. and Cao, X. (1983). Perturbation Analysis and Optimization of Queuing Networks. J. Optimization Theory and Applications 20 (4), 559–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    Knuth D. (1973). The art of computer programming. Vol. I. Addison Wesley, Reading Mass.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    Kushner H.J. and Clark, D.S. (1978). Stochastic Approximation Methods for Constrained and Unconstrained Systems. Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    Law A.M. and Kelton W.P. (1982). Simulation modeling and analysis. McGraw Hill, New York.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    L’Ecuyer P. (1990). A unified version of the IPA, SF and LR gradient estimation techniques. Management science 36 (11), 1364–1383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    Mc Leish D.L. and Rollans S. (1992). Conditioning for Variance Reduction in Estimating the Sensitivity of Simulations. Ann. Oper. Res. 39, 157–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. [19]
    Métivier M. and Priouret, P. (1987). Theorie de convergence presque sure pour une classe d’algoritms stochastiques a pas decroissants. Prob. Th. Rel Fields 74, 403–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. [20]
    Pflug G. Ch. (1990). On line optimization of simulated Markovian processes. Mathematics of OR, 15 (3), 381–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. [21]
    Pflug G. Ch. (1988). Derivatives of Probabilty measures - Concepts and applications to the optimization of stochastic systems. Lecture Notes in Control and Information Sciences 103 (P. Varaiya and A. Kurzhanski eds.), 252–274.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    Ripley B. (1987). Stochastic simulation. J. Wiley, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. [23]
    Roussas, G.G. (1972). Contiguity of probability measures: some applications in statistics. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. [24]
    Rubinstein R. (1981). Simulation and the Monte Carlo Method. J. Wiley & Sons, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. [25]
    Rubinstein R. (1986). Monte Carlo Optimization, Simulation and Sensitivity of Queuing Networks. J. Wiley & Sons, New York.Google Scholar
  26. [26]
    Rubinstein R. (1986). The score function approach for sensitivity analysis of computer simulation models. Mathematics and Computers in Simulation 28, 351–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. [27]
    Rubinstein R. (1989). Sensitivity analysis of computer simulation models via the efficient score. Operations Research 37 (1), 72–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. [28]
    Rubinstein R. and Shapiro A. (1990). Optimization of simulation models by the score function method. Mathematics and Computers in Simulation 32, 373–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. [29]
    Rubinstein R. and Shapiro A. (1993). Discrete Event Systems: Sensitivity Analysis and Stochastic Optimization by the Score Function Method. J. Wiley & Sons, New York.Google Scholar
  30. [30]
    Suri R. (1987). Infinitesimal perturbation analysis for general discrete event systems. J. of the ACM 34 (3), 686–717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. [31]
    Suri, R. and Leung Y.T. (1987). Single run optimization of discrete event simulations: An empirical study using the M/M/l queue. IEEE Trans. 21 (1), 35–49.Google Scholar
  32. [32]
    Wasan, M.T. (1969). Stochastic Approximation. Cambridge Tracts 58, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  33. [33]
    Zazanis, M.A. and Suri, R. (1994. Perturbation analysis of the GI/GI/1 queue. QUESTA 18, 199–248.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Georg Ch. Pflug

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations