ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
A comparison of perturbation analysis techniques
Full text PdfPdf (499 KB)
Source Winter Simulation Conference archive
Proceedings of the 28th conference on Winter simulation table of contents
Coronado, California, United States
Pages: 295 - 301  
Year of Publication: 1996
ISBN:0-7803-3383-7
Authors
Michael C. Fu  College of Business and Management, University of Maryland at College Park, College Park, Maryland
Jian-Qiang Hu  Department of Manufacturing Engineering, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts
Sponsors
INFORMS/CS : Computer Science TC
SIGSIM: ACM Special Interest Group on Simulation and Modeling
IIE : Institute of Industrial Engineers
SCS : Society for Computer Simulation
ASA : American Statistical Association
NIST : National Institue of Standards & Technology
IEEE-CS : Computer Society
IEEE-SMCS : Systems, Man & Cybernetics Society
ACM: Association for Computing Machinery
Publisher
IEEE Computer Society  Washington, DC, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 4,   Downloads (12 Months): 15,   Citation Count: 1
Additional Information:

abstract   references   cited by   collaborative colleagues  

Tools and Actions: Review this Article  
DOI Bookmark: Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/256562.256633
What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

Perturbation analysis (PA) is a technique for estimating gradients of performance measures, particularly applicable to the simulation of discrete-event systems. Over the past two decades, various "versions" have been developed. In this paper, we compare and contrast some of these perturbation analysis techniques by applying them to a simple example. This example also serves to highlight the issue of process representation that can play a very crucial role in the application of perturbation analysis.


REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

 
1
 
2
 
3
Dai, L.. and Y.C. Ho. 1995. Structural infinitesimal perturbation analysis for derivative estimation in discrete event dynamic systems, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 40:1154-1166.
 
4
Fu, M.C. 1994. Optimization via simulation: a review. Annals of Operations Research 53: 199-248.
 
5
Fu, M.C. and J. Q. Hu. 1992. Extensions and generalizations of smoothed perturbation analysis in a generalized semi-Markov process framework, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 37: 1483-1500.
 
6
Fu, M.C. and J. Q. Hu. 1996. Conditional Monte Carlo: Gradient Estimation and Optimization Applications, Kluwer Academic Publishers, forthcoming.
 
7
Gaivoronski, A., L.Y. Shi, and R.S. Sreenivas. 1992. Augmented infinitesimal perturbation analysis: an alternate explanation, Discrete Event Dynamic Systems: Theory and Applications, 2: 121-138.
 
8
Glasserman, P. 1991. Gradient Estimation Via Perturbation Analysis, Kluwer Academic.
 
9
Gong, W.B. and Y.C. Ho. 1987. Smoothed perturbation analysis of discrete-event dynamic systems, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 32: 858- 867.
 
10
Ho, Y.C. and X.R. Cao. 1991. Discrete Event Dynamic Systems and Perturbation Analysis, Kluwer Academic.
 
11
 
12
Shi, L. Y. 1996. Discontinuous perturbation analysis of discrete event dynamic systems, to appear in IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control.

Collaborative Colleagues:
Michael C. Fu: colleagues
Jian-Qiang Hu: colleagues