Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 48 references

Additive Distributionally Robust Ranking and Selection

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Distributionally robust selection needs infinite samples on only $k+m-1$ scenarios, not all $km$ scenarios.

desk verdict Consistency and PICS decay are solid, but Theorem 2's additivity proof has a genuine gap: the greedy k-step can re-select a scenario after its running minimum, so the claimed dominance argument and the key inclusion do not hold. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.06147 v1 pith:37PJD65S submitted 2025-09-07 stat.ML cs.LGstat.ME

Zaile Li , Yuchen Wan , L. Jeff Hong This is my paper · ORCID
classification stat.MLcs.LGstat.ME MSC 62F0762L10
keywords rankingandselectioninputuncertaintydistributionallyrobustoptimizationadditivityconsistencybudgetallocationboundarycrossingprobabilityofcorrect
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Distributionally robust ranking and selection (DRR&S) asks which of $k$ simulated alternatives has the smallest worst-case mean when the input distribution is uncertain, with $m$ plausible input distributions forming $km$ scenarios. The paper establishes that consistency—choosing the true best with probability approaching one as the sampling budget grows—does not require eventually sampling all $km$ scenarios. The proof runs through a greedy additive allocation (AA) procedure that each round samples only the current best alternative's $m$ scenarios and the current empirical worst-case scenario of every other alternative. For this procedure the probability of incorrect selection decays exponentially and, almost surely, exactly $k+m-1$ scenarios are sampled infinitely often as the budget tends to infinity. The paper also shows that the infinitely sampled scenario of a non-best alternative need not be its true worst-case scenario, which reframes which scenarios are actually critical.

What carries the argument

The central object is the last exit time of a scenario's sample-mean process: $U_{1j}(b)=\sup\{n\ge1:\bar X_{1j}(n)\ge b\}$ for scenarios of the best alternative and $L_{ij}(b)=\sup\{n\ge1:\bar X_{ij}(n)\le b\}$ for scenarios of non-best alternatives, with $b$ inside the gap $(\mu_{11},\mu_{21})$. These random times are finite almost surely and have exponentially decaying tails, and they bound how often the greedy $m$-step can select a non-best alternative and how often the $k$-step can act while the best's worst-case sample mean is above the threshold. The proof then uses a greedy-switching property: once the finitely many $m$-steps of a non-best alternative are exhausted, its $k$-step sampling tracks the current empirical worst-case scenario, and a convergent sample-mean process cannot switch between two scenarios infinitely often once one attains its tail minimum. This is what forces exactly one scenario per non-best alternative to be sampled forever.

What would settle it

Simulate the AA procedure on a small instance, say $k=2$, $m=2$, with normal outputs and a chosen gap $\delta>0$; count, over many replications, how many scenarios have final sample sizes that keep growing with $N$ and whether the true worst-case scenario of the non-best alternative is among them. Theorem 2 predicts the count converges to $k+m-1=3$ and Theorem 3 predicts the worst-case scenario is excluded with positive probability; observing two or more infinitely sampled scenarios per non-best alternative, or zero probability of excluding the worst-case scenario, would refute the claims. A second probe is to set $\mu_{21}=\mu_{11}$ and check that the PCS of AA does not tend to one, which would confirm that the positive-gap assumption is load-bearing.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is an exact asymptotic identity for the AA procedure: almost surely, as the total budget $N\to\infty$, the number of scenarios sampled infinitely often is exactly $k+m-1$—all $m$ scenarios of the true best alternative plus exactly one scenario per non-best alternative—and this is enough for the probability of correct selection to converge to one. The finite-time engine is a lower bound on the PCS expressed through last exit times of sample-mean processes across a threshold $b_\delta\in(\mu_{11},\mu_{21})$; this bound gives exponential decay of the error probability. The additivity result is stronger than prior conjectures in that the single infinitely sampled scenario of a non-best alternative is random and may, with positive probability, be a non-worst-case scenario, so consistency does not require identifying or even estimating the true worst-case mean of a losing alternative. The same pair of guarantees—consistency and exact additivity—is extended to the general additive allocation (GAA) class whenever the modular $m$-step and $k$-step rules satisfy sufficient-exploration conditions.

Load-bearing premise

The theory requires a strictly positive gap $\delta=\mu_{21}-\mu_{11}$ between the worst-case means of the best and the second-best alternative, with the best alternative unique; if the gap is zero or the best is tied, the PCS lower bound and the consistency proof no longer hold.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The AA procedure is consistent: as $N\to\infty$ the PCS tends to one, with the probability of incorrect selection decaying exponentially, despite the allocation being greedy and restricted to current critical scenarios.
  • Almost surely only $k+m-1$ scenarios are sampled infinitely often; all other $km-(k+m-1)$ scenarios are sampled finitely many times even though the procedure remains consistent.
  • For every non-best alternative, the one scenario sampled forever is random and can be a non-worst-case scenario with strictly positive probability, so identifying the worst-case scenario is not a prerequisite for correct selection.
  • Any GAA procedure whose $m$-step and $k$-step rules satisfy sufficient exploration inherits both consistency and exact additivity, allowing standard R&S rules such as KG and TTTS to be reused without losing guarantees.
  • The finite-time PCS lower bound in Lemma 2 makes the error probability explicitly exponential in the budget, so larger budgets buy exponentially better confidence for a fixed problem instance.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If exact additivity is a property of the DRR&S problem rather than of the AA procedure, then the asymptotic design goal for robust selection should be keeping each non-best alternative's worst-case sample mean above a guide rail set by the best alternative, not identifying worst-case input distributions; this suggests simpler heuristics than OCBA-style critical-scenario allocation.
  • A testable extension: take the AA procedure with $k=10$, $m=5$ under the monotone-means configuration, record the label of the infinitely sampled scenario for each non-best alternative, and compare the empirical frequency with which the true worst-case scenario is excluded against the positive lower bound of Theorem 3.
  • The same boundary-crossing machinery might carry over to ambiguity sets with infinitely many distributions, since the exponential tail bound only needs the separating threshold between the best and second-best worst-case means; the paper leaves that extension open.
  • For practitioners, the implication is that robustness against input uncertainty does not demand heavy estimation of each worst-case distribution; sampling effort is better spent separating the best alternative from its most dangerous challenger under the worst-case lens.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies fixed-budget distributionally robust ranking and selection (DRR&S) with k alternatives and m scenarios per alternative. It proposes an additive allocation (AA) procedure that, in each round, samples all m scenarios of the current empirical best alternative and the current empirical worst-case scenario of each other alternative, and finally selects the alternative that has been named best most often. The central theoretical claims are: (i) a finite-time lower bound on PCS via last-exit-time boundary-crossing arguments (Lemma 2); (ii) exponential decay of the probability of incorrect selection (Proposition 1), implying consistency (Theorem 1); (iii) an almost-sure additivity result stating that as the budget grows, exactly k+m-1 scenarios are sampled infinitely often (Theorem 2); and (iv) a result that the true worst-case scenario of a non-best alternative need not be among the infinitely sampled scenarios (Theorem 3). The paper then generalizes AA to a GAA framework allowing modular plug-in sampling rules (e.g., KG, TTTS) and claims consistency and additivity under sufficient exploration conditions (Theorems 4 and 5). Numerical experiments on synthetic and practical problems support the qualitative predictions.

Significance. If the main theorems are correct, the paper delivers a striking and useful message: consistency in DRR&S does not require all km scenarios to be sampled infinitely often, and the identity of the infinitely sampled scenario for each non-best alternative can be random and need not be the true worst case. This challenges a prior belief in the DRR&S literature and gives a theoretical basis for additive allocation. The boundary-crossing derivation is refreshingly parameter-free: no fitted constants enter the PCS bound, and the results yield falsifiable predictions that are directly examined in the numerics. The GAA framework is a constructive design principle. However, the proof of Theorem 2, which underpins the headline additivity claim, contains a false dominance assertion; since Theorem 4 inherits the same argument, the central contribution is currently not rigorously established.

major comments (2)
  1. [EC.1.5.2, Eq. (EC.1.30)] The proof of Theorem 2 contains an unsupported dominance claim. After the event Ω^<_{ijl} = {min_{n≥n_ij(t_i)} X̄_ij(n) < min_{n≥n_il(t_i)} X̄_il(n)} is introduced, the proof states that once (i,j) reaches its minimum sample mean it will be dominated by (i,l) and no longer selected by the greedy k-step. This is false for the k-step, which selects the scenario with the current maximum sample mean, not the one with the smaller tail minimum. A scenario can attain its running minimum and later have a current sample mean above the other scenario: for example, with sample-mean paths X̄_ij = 0.5, -1.0, 1.0 and X̄_il = 0.4, scenario j is selected again after its minimum. Consequently the inclusion n^k_ij(t) ≤ argmin_{n≥n_ij(t_i)} X̄_ij(n) leading to Eq. (EC.1.30) is invalid, and Pr(lim n_ij = lim n_il = ∞) = 0 is not established. Since Theorem 2 is the paper's central additivity claim and Theorem 4 inherits its proof, this gap is load-bearing and must be repaired, or the claims should be weakened accordingly.
  2. [EC.1.1 and EC.1.6] Lemma 3 and Lemma EC.7 are not proved within this manuscript despite statements that their proofs are included; the derivations invoke Lemma 3 of Li et al. (2025a) and Lemma 2 of Li et al. (2025b) from co-authored prior work. These lemmas directly support Proposition 1/Theorem 1 and Theorems 3/5, so the paper is not self-contained at load-bearing points. The authors should either provide full self-contained proofs of these tail bounds or state the external results verbatim with verifiable references, since the cited papers may not be accessible to readers.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Figures 2-5 and EC.1] The figures appear in the manuscript with garbled glyph placeholders (e.g., strings beginning with "/uni00000014/uni00000013/...") in place of axis labels and legends, making them unreadable; the figures should be regenerated with properly embedded text and fonts.
  2. [Section 6.3.2, Inventory Management] The text states that enumerating s ∈ {240,260,280,300,320,340} and S ∈ {350,370,390,410,430,450} yields 18 feasible policies; with six reorder points and six order-up-to levels and the constraint s < S, the number of feasible policies is 15, so the stated count should be checked.
  3. [Procedure 2, Step 4] Step 4 contains a typo: "for each alternative i, \hat b, set r^k_i ← r^k_i + 1" should read "for each alternative i ≠ \hat b".
  4. [Section 5.2] The claim that the ε-greedy modification guarantees Assumptions 1 and 2 is asserted but not proved; since the formal results are conditional on these assumptions, the authors should add a short argument that ε-exploration yields infinite exploration almost surely whenever the relevant counter grows without bound.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found; the derivation is self-contained modulo general sample-path lemmas, and the cited prior results are upstream standard facts.

full rationale

No load-bearing step reduces, by definition or by fitted inputs, to the claim being proved. The AA and GAA procedures are defined algorithmically, and all parameters entering the theorems (means, variances, delta, the boundary b_delta) are primitives of the problem instance rather than quantities fitted to the target output. Theorem 1 is derived from the PCS lower bound in Lemma 2 and the tail bound in Lemma 3; Lemma 3 is proved in EC.1.1 directly from a standard Gaussian tail inequality, and the cited Lemma 3 of Li et al. (2025a) is a general statement about i.i.d. normal sample paths, not a statement of DRR&S additivity or of the AA procedure's behavior. It is therefore upstream evidence rather than an assumption of the conclusion. Similarly, Lemma EC.7 uses a general boundary-crossing identity from Li et al. (2025b); that identity is parameter-free, concerns a single normal sample path, and does not include the target result of Theorem 3. The central additivity claim in Theorem 2 is not true by construction: although each AA round samples only k+m-1 scenarios, the identity of the current worst-case scenario can change across rounds, so excluding infinite switching requires the nontrivial bounded-m-step and tail-minimum argument in EC.1.5.2. The skeptic's concern about the dominance claim in that proof is a correctness or inferential issue, not an instance of a result being equivalent to its inputs, so it does not constitute circularity. The paper also does not fit parameters to a subset of data and then call the same quantity a prediction; no estimated budget-allocation ratios appear in the theoretical claims. Overall, no circular derivation is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted to data: b_delta is an analytical threshold chosen inside the gap and is not used by any procedure. The central results rest on the usual distributional and structural assumptions of the DRR&S model, three external probabilistic lemmas from co-authored prior work, and two explicit design assumptions for the GAA framework.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption All simulation outputs X_ij are normally distributed with finite variance, and observations are mutually independent within and across scenarios.
    Section 2 states this convention. It is used by Lemma 3 tail bounds, Lemma EC.6 on distinct sample means, and the law-of-the-iterated-logarithm arguments in the additivity proof.
  • domain assumption The ambiguity set contains m > 1 plausible input distributions, and scenario means are ordered so that mu_i1 >= mu_i2 >= ... >= mu_im for each alternative.
    Section 2 defines the minimax best alternative and labels scenario (i,1) as the worst case. The ordering is used throughout to set boundaries between best and non-best alternatives.
  • domain assumption A unique best alternative exists and delta = mu_21 - mu_11 > 0, though delta need not be known.
    Section 2 assumes the worst-case means are strictly ordered and the best alternative is unique. The boundary b_delta in (mu_11, mu_21) required by Lemma 1 and Proposition 1 exists only if this gap is positive.
  • standard math Tail probability and last-exit-time bounds from Li et al. (2025a,b) are accepted as given.
    Lemma 3 uses a bound on min_{n' >= n} Zbar(n') from Li et al. (2025a), and Lemma EC.7 uses a formula for P{Zbar(n) > -b for all n} from Li et al. (2025b). These are not proved in this paper and are authored with overlapping co-authors.
  • ad hoc to paper GAA sampling rules M and K satisfy sufficient exploration conditions: m-steps explore every scenario of an infinitely selected best alternative, and k-steps with Delta^k in {0,1} explore infinitely often whenever an alternative is in the k-step infinitely often.
    Section 5.2 introduces Assumptions 1 and 2 to extend the AA theorems to GAA. The paper notes these are hard to verify for adaptive rules and recommends epsilon-greedy exploration as a remedy.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Additive Distributionally Robust Ranking and Selection." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/37PJD65S

@misc{pith2026250906147,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Additive Distributionally Robust Ranking and Selection},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/37PJD65S}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.06147}
}
abstract

Ranking and selection (R&S) aims to identify the alternative with the best mean performance among $k$ simulated alternatives. The practical value of R&S depends on accurate simulation input modeling, which often suffers from the curse of input uncertainty due to limited data. Distributionally robust ranking and selection (DRR&S) addresses this challenge by modeling input uncertainty via an ambiguity set of $m > 1$ plausible input distributions, resulting in $km$ scenarios in total. Recent DRR&S studies suggest a key structural insight: additivity in budget allocation is essential for efficiency. However, existing justifications are heuristic, and fundamental properties such as consistency and the precise allocation pattern induced by additivity remain poorly understood. In this paper, we propose a simple additive allocation (AA) procedure that aims to exclusively sample the $k + m - 1$ previously hypothesized critical scenarios. Leveraging boundary-crossing arguments, we establish a lower bound on the probability of correct selection and characterize the procedure's budget allocation behavior. We then prove that AA is consistent and, surprisingly, achieves additivity in the strongest sense: as the total budget increases, only $k + m - 1$ scenarios are sampled infinitely often. Notably, the worst-case scenarios of non-best alternatives may not be among them, challenging prior beliefs about their criticality. These results offer new and counterintuitive insights into the additive structure of DRR&S. To improve practical performance while preserving this structure, we introduce a general additive allocation (GAA) framework that flexibly incorporates sampling rules from traditional R&S procedures in a modular fashion. Numerical experiments support our theoretical findings and demonstrate the competitive performance of the proposed GAA procedures.

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eid howpublished institution isbn issn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type url volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in "" FUNCTION format.date year ...

  3. [3]

    INFORMS Journal on Computing 21(2):193--208

    Andrad \'o ttir S, Prudius AA (2009) Balanced explorative and exploitative search with estimation for simulation optimization. INFORMS Journal on Computing 21(2):193--208

    work page 2009

  4. [4]

    The Palgrave Handbook of Operations Research, 573--620 (Springer)

    Barton RR, Lam H, Song E (2022) Input uncertainty in stochastic simulation. The Palgrave Handbook of Operations Research, 573--620 (Springer)

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    The Annals of Mathematical Statistics 25(1):16--39

    Bechhofer RE (1954) A single-sample multiple decision procedure for ranking means of normal populations with known variances. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics 25(1):16--39

    work page 1954

  6. [6]

    Ben-Tal A, Nemirovski A, El Ghaoui L (2009) Robust optimization (Princeton University Press)

    work page 2009

  7. [7]

    Discrete Event Dynamic Systems 10:251--270

    Chen CH, Lin J, Y \"u cesan E, Chick SE (2000) Simulation budget allocation for further enhancing the efficiency of ordinal optimization. Discrete Event Dynamic Systems 10:251--270

    work page 2000

  8. [8]

    Management Science 69(6):3457--3473

    Chen Y, Ryzhov IO (2023) Balancing optimal large deviations in sequential selection. Management Science 69(6):3457--3473

    work page 2023

Show all 48 references
  1. [9]

    Operations Research 49(5):744--758

    Chick SE (2001) Input distribution selection for simulation experiments: Accounting for input uncertainty. Operations Research 49(5):744--758

    2001

  2. [10]

    INFORMS Journal on Computing 22(1):71--80

    Chick SE, Branke J, Schmidt C (2010) Sequential sampling to myopically maximize the expected value of information. INFORMS Journal on Computing 22(1):71--80

    2010

  3. [11]

    Management Science 58(3):550--569

    Chick SE, Frazier P (2012) Sequential sampling with economics of selection procedures. Management Science 58(3):550--569

    2012

  4. [12]

    Operations Research Perspectives 7:100162

    Corlu CG, Akcay A, Xie W (2020) Stochastic simulation under input uncertainty: A review. Operations Research Perspectives 7:100162

    2020

  5. [13]

    Operations Research 64(6):1499--1514

    Fan W, Hong LJ, Nelson BL (2016) Indifference-zone-free selection of the best. Operations Research 64(6):1499--1514

    2016

  6. [14]

    2013 Winter Simulations Conference (WSC), 868--876 (IEEE)

    Fan W, Hong LJ, Zhang X (2013) Robust selection of the best. 2013 Winter Simulations Conference (WSC), 868--876 (IEEE)

    2013

  7. [15]

    Management Science 66(1):190--208

    Fan W, Hong LJ, Zhang X (2020) Distributionally robust selection of the best. Management Science 66(1):190--208

    2020

  8. [16]

    2008 Winter Simulation Conference, 305--312 (IEEE)

    Frazier P, Powell WB (2008) The knowledge-gradient stopping rule for ranking and selection. 2008 Winter Simulation Conference, 305--312 (IEEE)

    2008

  9. [17]

    Operations Research 65(3):787--803

    Gao S, Chen W, Shi L (2017 a ) A new budget allocation framework for the expected opportunity cost. Operations Research 65(3):787--803

    2017

  10. [18]

    Automatica 81:30--36

    Gao S, Xiao H, Zhou E, Chen W (2017 b ) Robust ranking and selection with optimal computing budget allocation. Automatica 81:30--36

    2017

  11. [19]

    Ingalls RG, Rossetti MD, Smith JS, Peters BA, eds., Proceedings of the 2004 Conference on Winter Simulation, volume 1, 577--585 (Piscataway, NJ: IEEE)

    Glynn P, Juneja S (2004) A large deviations perspective on ordinal optimization. Ingalls RG, Rossetti MD, Smith JS, Peters BA, eds., Proceedings of the 2004 Conference on Winter Simulation, volume 1, 577--585 (Piscataway, NJ: IEEE)

    2004

  12. [20]

    Henderson SG (2003) Input model uncertainty: Why do we care and what should we do about it? Winter Simulation Conference, volume 1, 90--100

    2003

  13. [21]

    Frontiers of Engineering Management 8(3):321--343

    Hong LJ, Fan W, Luo J (2021) Review on ranking and selection: A new perspective. Frontiers of Engineering Management 8(3):321--343

    2021

  14. [22]

    Operations Research

    Kim T, Kim KK, Song E (2024) Selection of the most probable best. Operations Research

    2024

  15. [23]

    2023 Winter Simulation Conference (WSC), 1501--1515 (IEEE)

    Lam H (2023) Statistical uncertainty quantification for expensive black-box models: Methodologies and input uncertainty applications. 2023 Winter Simulation Conference (WSC), 1501--1515 (IEEE)

    2023

  16. [24]

    Automatica 153:111042

    Li Y, Gao S (2023) Convergence rate analysis for optimal computing budget allocation algorithms. Automatica 153:111042

    2023

  17. [25]

    Management Science 71(2):1238--1259

    Li Z, Fan W, Hong LJ (2025) The (surprising) sample optimality of greedy procedures for large-scale ranking and selection. Management Science 71(2):1238--1259

    2025

  18. [26]

    Nelson B, Pei L (2013) Foundations and methods of stochastic simulation, volume 187 (Springer)

    2013

  19. [27]

    Operations research 68(6):1625--1647

    Russo D (2020) Simple B ayesian algorithms for best-arm identification. Operations research 68(6):1625--1647

    2020

  20. [28]

    Operations Research 64(6):1515--1528

    Ryzhov IO (2016) On the convergence rates of expected improvement methods. Operations Research 64(6):1515--1528

    2016

  21. [29]

    Naval Research Logistics (NRL) 66(8):648--662

    Shi Z, Gao S, Xiao H, Chen W (2019) A worst-case formulation for constrained ranking and selection with input uncertainty. Naval Research Logistics (NRL) 66(8):648--662

    2019

  22. [30]

    Advances in Modeling and Simulation: Seminal Research from 50 Years of Winter Simulation Conferences, 63--80 (Springer)

    Song E, Nelson BL (2017) Input model risk. Advances in Modeling and Simulation: Seminal Research from 50 Years of Winter Simulation Conferences, 63--80 (Springer)

    2017

  23. [31]

    2015 Winter Simulation Conference (WSC), 414--424 (IEEE)

    Song E, Nelson BL, Hong LJ (2015) Input uncertainty and indifference-zone ranking & selection. 2015 Winter Simulation Conference (WSC), 414--424 (IEEE)

    2015

  24. [32]

    Proceedings of the 2014 Winter Simulation Conference, 162--176

    Song E, Nelson BL, Pegden CD (2014) Input uncertainty quantification: Advanced tutorial. Proceedings of the 2014 Winter Simulation Conference, 162--176

    2014

  25. [33]

    2023 Winter Simulation Conference (WSC), 3647--3656 (IEEE)

    Wan Y, Hong LJ, Fan W (2023) Upper-confidence-bound procedure for robust selection of the best. 2023 Winter Simulation Conference (WSC), 3647--3656 (IEEE)

    2023

  26. [34]

    Asia-Pacific Journal of Operational Research 2540003

    Wan Y, Li Z, Hong LJ (2025) New additive OCBA procedures for robust ranking and selection. Asia-Pacific Journal of Operational Research 2540003

    2025

  27. [35]

    Operations Research 72(2):781--795

    Wu D, Wang Y, Zhou E (2024) Data-driven ranking and selection under input uncertainty. Operations Research 72(2):781--795

    2024

  28. [36]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.12183

    Wu D, Zhou E (2018) Analyzing and provably improving fixed budget ranking and selection algorithms. arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.12183

    2018 arXiv

  29. [37]

    2016 Winter Simulation Conference (WSC), 758--769 (IEEE)

    Zhang X, Ding L (2016) Sequential sampling for bayesian robust ranking and selection. 2016 Winter Simulation Conference (WSC), 758--769 (IEEE)

    2016

  30. [38]

    Advances in Modeling and Simulation: Seminal Research from 50 Years of Winter Simulation Conferences, 219--247 (Springer)

    Zhou E, Wu D (2017) Simulation optimization under input model uncertainty. Advances in Modeling and Simulation: Seminal Research from 50 Years of Winter Simulation Conferences, 219--247 (Springer)

    2017

  31. [39]

    2015 Winter Simulation Conference (WSC), 3714--3724 (IEEE)

    Zhou E, Xie W (2015) Simulation optimization when facing input uncertainty. 2015 Winter Simulation Conference (WSC), 3714--3724 (IEEE)

    2015

  32. [40]

    Automatica 81:30--36

    Gao S, Xiao H, Zhou E, Chen W (2017) Robust ranking and selection with optimal computing budget allocation. Automatica 81:30--36

    2017

  33. [41]

    Management Science 66(1):190–208

    Fan W, Hong LJ, Zhang X (2020) Distributionally robust selection of the best. Management Science 66(1):190–208

    2020

  34. [42]

    Available at https://github.com/simopt-admin/simopt

    Eckman D, Henderson S, Shashaani S, Pasupathy R (2022) SimOpt (Version 1.2.0). Available at https://github.com/simopt-admin/simopt. MIT License

    2022

  35. [43]

    SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization 47(5):2410–2439

    Frazier PI, Powell WB, Dayanik S (2008) A knowledge-gradient policy for sequential information collection. SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization 47(5):2410–2439

    2008

  36. [44]

    American Journal of Mathematics 63(1):169–176

    Hartman P, Wintner A (1941) On the law of the iterated logarithm. American Journal of Mathematics 63(1):169–176

    1941

  37. [45]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.09537

    Li Z, Fan W, Hong LJ (2025) Efficient budget allocation for large-scale LLM-enabled virtual screening. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.09537. Available at https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.09537

    2025 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Management Science 71(2):1238–1259

    Li Z, Fan W, Hong LJ (2025) The (surprising) sample optimality of greedy procedures for large-scale ranking and selection. Management Science 71(2):1238–1259

    2025

  39. [47]

    Operations Research 68(6):1625–1647

    Russo D (2020) Simple Bayesian algorithms for best arm identification. Operations Research 68(6):1625–1647

    2020

  40. [48]

    Asia-Pacific Journal of Operational Research 42(1):2540003

    Wan Y, Li Z, Hong LJ (2025) New additive OCBA procedures for robust ranking and selection. Asia-Pacific Journal of Operational Research 42(1):2540003

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.