Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
research-article
Public Access

Bias-corrected Estimation of the Density of a Conditional Expectation in Nested Simulation Problems

Published: 23 July 2021 Publication History

Abstract

Many two-level nested simulation applications involve the conditional expectation of some response variable, where the expected response is the quantity of interest, and the expectation is with respect to the inner-level random variables, conditioned on the outer-level random variables. The latter typically represent random risk factors, and risk can be quantified by estimating the probability density function (pdf) or cumulative distribution function (cdf) of the conditional expectation. Much prior work has considered a naïve estimator that uses the empirical distribution of the sample averages across the inner-level replicates. This results in a biased estimator, because the distribution of the sample averages is over-dispersed relative to the distribution of the conditional expectation when the number of inner-level replicates is finite. Whereas most prior work has focused on allocating the numbers of outer- and inner-level replicates to balance the bias/variance tradeoff, we develop a bias-corrected pdf estimator. Our approach is based on the concept of density deconvolution, which is widely used to estimate densities with noisy observations but has not previously been considered for nested simulation problems. For a fixed computational budget, the bias-corrected deconvolution estimator allows more outer-level and fewer inner-level replicates to be used, which substantially improves the efficiency of the nested simulation.

References

[1]
Osei Antwi. 2014. Measuring portfolio loss using approximation methods. Sci. J. Appl. Math. Statist. 2, 2 (2014), 42--52.
[2]
A. N. Avramidis, A. Deslauriers, and P. L'Ecuyer. 2004. Modeling daily arrivals to a telephone call center. Manag. Sci. 50, 7 (July 2004), 896--908. Retrieved from https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/48876/.
[3]
Russell R. Barton, Henry Lam, and Eunhye Song. 2018. Revisiting direct bootstrap resampling for input model uncertainty. In Proceedings of the Winter Simulation Conference. 1635--1645.
[4]
Alan Brennan, Samer Kharroubi, Anthony O'Hagan, and Jim Chilcott.2007. Calculating partial expected value of perfect information via Monte Carlo sampling algorithms. Med. Decis. Mak. 27 (2007), 448--470.
[5]
Mark Broadie, Yiping Du, and Ciamac C. Moallemi. 2011. Efficient risk estimation via nested sequential simulation. Manag. Sci. 57 (2011), 1172--1194.
[6]
William S. Cleveland and Eric Grosse. 1991. Computational methods for local regression. Statist. Comput. 1, 1 (1991), 47--62.
[7]
Samuel Daniel Conte and Carl De Boor. 1980. Elementary Numerical Analysis: An Algorithmic Approach (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill, New York. Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015046281518?urlappend=3Bsignon=swle.
[8]
Peter J. Diggle and Peter Hall. 1993. A Fourier approach to nonparametric deconvolution of a density estimate. J. Roy. Statist. Soc. Series B (Methodol.) (1993), 523--531.
[9]
Richard Durrett. 2010. Probability: Theory and Examples (4th ed.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Retrieved from http://lib.myilibrary.com/detail.asp?ID=281866.
[10]
Jianqing Fan. 1992. Deconvolution with supersmooth distributions. Canad. J. Statist. 20 (1992), 155--169.
[11]
Simone Farinelli and Mykhaylo Shkolnikov. 2012. Two models of stochastic loss given default. J. Cred. Risk 8, 2 (June 2012), 3--20.
[12]
M. Gordy and S. Juneja. 2006. Efficient simulation for risk measurement in portfolio of CDOs. In Proceedings of the Winter Simulation Conference. 749--756.
[13]
Michael B. Gordy and Sandeep Juneja. 2010. Nested simulation in portfolio risk measurement. Manag. Sci. 56, 10 (2010), 1833--1848.
[14]
Trevor Hastie, Robert Tibshirani, and Jerome Friedman. 2009. The elements of statistical learning: prediction, inference and data mining. Springer-Verlag, New York.
[15]
Rouba Ibrahim and Pierre L'Ecuyer. 2013. Forecasting call center arrivals: Fixed-effects, mixed-effects, and bivariate models. Manuf. Serv. Oper. Manag. 15 (02 2013), 72--85.
[16]
Rouba Ibrahim, Han Ye, Pierre L'Ecuyer, and Haipeng Shen. 2016. Modeling and forecasting call center arrivals: A literature survey and a case study. Int. J. Forecast. 32, 3 (2016), 865--874.
[17]
Gabriel Jiménez and Javier Mencía. 2009. Modelling the distribution of credit losses with observable and latent factors. J. Empir. Finan. 16, 2 (2009), 235--253.
[18]
Hai Lan, Barry L. Nelson, and Jeremy Staum. 2010. A confidence interval procedure for expected shortfall risk measurement via two-level simulation. Oper. Res. 58, 5 (2010), 1481--1490.
[19]
Peter D. Lax. 2002. Functional Analysis. Wiley, New York. Retrieved from http://newcatalog.library.cornell.edu/catalog/4301419.
[20]
Shing-Hoi Lee. 1998. Monte Carlo Computation of Conditional Expectation Quantiles. Ph.D. Dissertation. Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
[21]
Shing-Hoi Lee and Peter W. Glynn. 2003. Computing the distribution function of a conditional expectation via Monte Carlo: Discrete conditioning spaces. ACM Trans. Model. Comput. Simul. 13, 3 (July 2003), 238--258.
[22]
Yingxing Li and David Ruppert. 2008. On the asymptotics of penalized splines. Biometrika 95, 2 (2008), 415--436.
[23]
Pierre L'Ecuyer and Eric Buist. 2006. Variance Reduction in the Simulation of Call Centers. 604--613.
[24]
John Mendelsohn and John Rice. 1982. Deconvolution of microfluorometric histograms with B splines. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 77, 380 (1982), 748--753.
[25]
Boris Oreshkin, Nazim Regnard, and L'Ecuyer. 2016. Rate-based daily arrival process models with application to call centers. Oper. Res. 64 (03 2016).
[26]
Murray H. Protter and Charles B. Morrey, Jr.1985. Intermediate Calculus (2nd ed.). Springer, New York, 421--426.
[27]
R Core Team. 2018. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Retrieved from https://www.R-project.org/.
[28]
Samuel G. Steckley, Shane G. Henderson, David Ruppert, Ran Yang, Daniel W. Apley, and Jeremy Staum. 2016. Estimating the density of a conditional expectation. Electron. J. Statist. 10, 1 (2016), 736--760.
[29]
L. A. Stefanski and R. J. Carroll. 1990. Deconvoluting kernel density estimators. Statistics 21 (1990), 169--184.
[30]
Yunpeng Sun, Daniel W. Apley, and Jeremy Staum. 2011. Efficient nested simulation for estimating the variance of a conditional expectation. Oper. Res. 59, 4 (2011), 998--1007. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/23013161.
[31]
János Sztrik. 2011. Basic Queueing Theory. GlobeEdit.
[32]
L. Takács. 1962. Introduction to the Theory of Queues. Oxford University Press.
[33]
A. W. van der Vaart. 1998. Asymptotic Statistics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511802256
[34]
Xiao Wang, Jinglai Shen, and David Ruppert. 2009. Local asymptotics of P-spline smoothing. arXiv preprint arXiv:0912.1824 (2009).
[35]
Wei Xie, Barry L. Nelson, and Russell R. Barton. 2014. A Bayesian framework for quantifying uncertainty in stochastic simulation. Oper. Res. 62, 6 (2014), 1439--1452.
[36]
Ran Yang, Daniel Apley, Jeremy Staum, and David Ruppert. 2020. Density deconvolution with additive measurement errors using quadratic programming. J. Computat. Graphic. Statist. (2020).
[37]
L. C. Zhao, P. R. Krishnaiah, and X. R. Chen. 1991. Almost Sure $L_r$-Norm Convergence for Data-Based Histogram Density Estimates. Theor. Probab. Applic. 35, 2 (Jan. 1991), 396--403.

Cited By

View all
  • (2023)Smoothness-Penalized Deconvolution (SPeD) of a Density EstimateJournal of the American Statistical Association10.1080/01621459.2023.2259028119:547(2407-2417)Online publication date: 10-Nov-2023

Index Terms

  1. Bias-corrected Estimation of the Density of a Conditional Expectation in Nested Simulation Problems

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Information & Contributors

        Information

        Published In

        cover image ACM Transactions on Modeling and Computer Simulation
        ACM Transactions on Modeling and Computer Simulation  Volume 31, Issue 4
        October 2021
        159 pages
        ISSN:1049-3301
        EISSN:1558-1195
        DOI:10.1145/3477418
        Issue’s Table of Contents
        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        Published: 23 July 2021
        Accepted: 01 March 2021
        Revised: 01 September 2020
        Received: 01 November 2019
        Published in TOMACS Volume 31, Issue 4

        Permissions

        Request permissions for this article.

        Check for updates

        Author Tags

        1. Deconvolution
        2. Stein's unbiased risk estimation
        3. estimating a conditional variance
        4. quadratic programming
        5. rate of convergence
        6. shape constraints

        Qualifiers

        • Research-article
        • Research
        • Refereed

        Funding Sources

        • NSF

        Contributors

        Other Metrics

        Bibliometrics & Citations

        Bibliometrics

        Article Metrics

        • Downloads (Last 12 months)121
        • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)14
        Reflects downloads up to 10 Nov 2024

        Other Metrics

        Citations

        Cited By

        View all
        • (2023)Smoothness-Penalized Deconvolution (SPeD) of a Density EstimateJournal of the American Statistical Association10.1080/01621459.2023.2259028119:547(2407-2417)Online publication date: 10-Nov-2023

        View Options

        View options

        PDF

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader

        HTML Format

        View this article in HTML Format.

        HTML Format

        Get Access

        Login options

        Full Access

        Media

        Figures

        Other

        Tables

        Share

        Share

        Share this Publication link

        Share on social media