The Bias-Variance Tradeoff in Data-Driven Optimization: A Local Misspecification Perspective
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Data-driven stochastic optimization is ubiquitous in machine learning and operational decision-making problems. Sample average approximation (SAA) and model-based approaches such as estimate-then-optimize (ETO) or integrated estimation-optimization (IEO) are all popular, with model-based approaches being able to circumvent some of the issues with SAA in complex context-dependent problems. Yet the relative performance of these methods is poorly understood, with most results confined to the dichotomous cases of the model-based approach being either well-specified or misspecified. We develop the first results that allow for a more granular analysis of the relative performance of these methods under a local misspecification setting, which models the scenario where the model-based approach is nearly well-specified. By leveraging tools from contiguity theory in statistics, we show that there is a bias-variance tradeoff between SAA, IEO, and ETO under local misspecification, and that the relative importance of the bias and the variance depends on the degree of local misspecification. Moreover, we derive explicit expressions for the decision bias, which allows us to characterize (un)impactful misspecification directions, and provide further geometric understanding of the variance.
Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 21 of its 46 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 21 Oct 2025.
Builds on
21 of 46 references.
References · 21
- 2017Smart "Predict, then Optimize"cited by 339
- 2019Learning with Fenchel-Young Lossescited by 119
- 2019Smart Predict-and-Optimize for Hard Combinatorial Optimization Problemscited by 89
- 2019Generalization Bounds in the Predict-then-Optimize Frameworkcited by 54
- 2020Fast Rates for Contextual Linear Optimizationcited by 43
- 2016Asymptotic Optimality in Stochastic Optimizationcited by 38
- 2021Integrated Conditional Estimation-Optimizationcited by 25
- 2018On the Differentiability of the Solution to Convex Optimization Problemscited by 23
- 2020Stochastic Optimization Forestscited by 20
- 2020Risk Guarantees for End-to-End Prediction and Optimization Processescited by 20
- 2023Estimate-Then-Optimize versus Integrated-Estimation-Optimization versus Sample Average Approximation: A Stochastic Dominance Perspectivecited by 20
- 2022Online Contextual Decision-Making with a Smart Predict-then-Optimize Methodcited by 12
9 more
- 2025Dissecting the Impact of Model Misspecification in Data-driven Optimizationcited by 10
- 2021On the Impossibility of Statistically Improving Empirical Optimization: A Second-Order Stochastic Dominance Perspectivecited by 6
- 2021Optimal Covariate Balancing Conditions in Propensity Score Estimationcited by 6
- 2023Model-based Offline Reinforcement Learning with Local Misspecificationcited by 5
- 2018Minimizing Sensitivity to Model Misspecificationcited by 3
- 2018Sensitivity Analysis using Approximate Moment Condition Modelscited by 3
- 2016Inference in Dynamic Discrete Choice Problems under Local Misspecificationcited by 1
- 2021On Misspecification in Prediction Problems and Robustness via Improper Learningcited by 1
- 2023Adapting to Misspecificationcited by 1
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 3.
3 papers.