A Constrained Winner under Competing Robust Objectives

Authors

  • Adam Coleman Author
  • George Rhodes Author
  • Caleb Jenkins Author

Abstract

Constrained best-arm identification defines admissibility, while a multi-objective robust criterion defines preference across protected conditions. Evaluation should retain component outcomes and identify whether sampling resolves feasibility or objective uncertainty. A changed tradeoff can move the winner without any new evidence, so preference disagreement must remain distinct from statistical imprecision. 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

  1. L. Yang, S. Gao, C. Li, and Y. Wang, “Stochastically Constrained Best Arm Identification with Thompson Sampling,” Automatica, vol. 176, 112223, 2025.
  2. W. Liu, S. Gao, and L. H. Lee, “A Multi-Objective Perspective on Robust Ranking and Selection,” Proceedings of the 2017 Winter Simulation Conference, pp. 2116–2127, 2017.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. Glasserman, Paul. Monte Carlo Methods in Financial Engineering. Springer, 2004. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-21617-1.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. Rasmussen, Carl Edward, and Christopher K. I. Williams. Gaussian Processes for Machine Learning. MIT Press, 2006. https://gaussianprocess.org/gpml/.

Downloads

Published

2026-07-01

Issue

Section

Articles