On the Equivalence and Performance of Distributionally Robust Optimization and Robust Satisficing Models

Problem definition: Distributionally robust optimization (DRO) is ubiquitous to address uncertainties inherent in operations management (OM) problems. Recently, an alternative goal-driven framework, robust satisficing (RS), is proposed. RS aims to attain a prescribed target, such as avoiding overshooting the cost budget, as much as possible under uncertainty. The goal-driven modeling philosophy fits many OM problems, yet there is a lack of direct comparisons between DRO and RS. In this paper, we uncover connections between DRO and RS. Methodology/results: Suppose both models are based on the Wasserstein metric and consider a risk-aware convex objective function affected by uncertain parameters. We demonstrate that they share the same solution family. We establish the correspondence between the radius parameter in DRO and the target parameter in RS such that the optimal solutions to the two models coincide. Inspired by the globalized distributionally robust counterpart (GDRC), we extend the analysis to GDRC and the globalized robust satisficing (GRS). We reveal that GDRC and GRS have the same solution families as DRO and RS, respectively. More importantly, we establish novel results on the equivalence of DRO, GDRC, RS, and GRS models under previously stated conditions. Managerial implications: The equivalence results help unify performance bounds of DRO and RS models. Specifically, each model now has an additional set of theoretical guarantees from the other model, and any bounds derived for one model automatically apply to other equivalent models via some parameter mapping. Despite the theoretical equivalence result, the performance of the DRO and RS models can vary depending on how the model parameters are selected. The experimental findings show how these differences emerge when transitioning from theory to practice. Additionally, the experiments provide insights for practitioners, such as how the use of cross-validation can help reflect the true model preferences, particularly when only a few validation points are set. Funding: The research of Z. Wang and L. Ran was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China [Grants 72272014, 91746210, and 72061127001]. Z. Wang’s research was also supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China [Grant 72242106]. The research of M. Zhou was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China [Grants 72301075, and 72293564/72293560]. Supplemental Material: The online appendices are available at https://doi.org/10.1287/msom.2023.0531 .

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Manufacturing & Service Operations Management
Published
2025-04-29
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1287/msom.2023.0531
Citations
3
Primary Topic
Risk and Portfolio Optimization
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
6.32
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

On the Equivalence and Performance of Distributionally Robust Optimization and Robust Satisficing Models

Zhiyuan Wang, Lun Ran, Long He, Minglong Zhou
3 citations
Manufacturing & Service Operations Management
Risk and Portfolio Optimization
6.32
article

On the Equivalence and Performance of Distributionally Robust Optimization and Robust Satisficing Models

Zhiyuan Wang, Lun Ran, Long He, Minglong Zhou
article en
3 citations

Abstract

Problem definition: Distributionally robust optimization (DRO) is ubiquitous to address uncertainties inherent in operations management (OM) problems. Recently, an alternative goal-driven framework, robust satisficing (RS), is proposed. RS aims to attain a prescribed target, such as avoiding overshooting the cost budget, as much as possible under uncertainty. The goal-driven modeling philosophy fits many OM problems, yet there is a lack of direct comparisons between DRO and RS. In this paper, we uncover connections between DRO and RS. Methodology/results: Suppose both models are based on the Wasserstein metric and consider a risk-aware convex objective function affected by uncertain parameters. We demonstrate that they share the same solution family. We establish the correspondence between the radius parameter in DRO and the target parameter in RS such that the optimal solutions to the two models coincide. Inspired by the globalized distributionally robust counterpart (GDRC), we extend the analysis to GDRC and the globalized robust satisficing (GRS). We reveal that GDRC and GRS have the same solution families as DRO and RS, respectively. More importantly, we establish novel results on the equivalence of DRO, GDRC, RS, and GRS models under previously stated conditions. Managerial implications: The equivalence results help unify performance bounds of DRO and RS models. Specifically, each model now has an additional set of theoretical guarantees from the other model, and any bounds derived for one model automatically apply to other equivalent models via some parameter mapping. Despite the theoretical equivalence result, the performance of the DRO and RS models can vary depending on how the model parameters are selected. The experimental findings show how these differences emerge when transitioning from theory to practice. Additionally, the experiments provide insights for practitioners, such as how the use of cross-validation can help reflect the true model preferences, particularly when only a few validation points are set. Funding: The research of Z. Wang and L. Ran was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China [Grants 72272014, 91746210, and 72061127001]. Z. Wang’s research was also supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China [Grant 72242106]. The research of M. Zhou was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China [Grants 72301075, and 72293564/72293560]. Supplemental Material: The online appendices are available at https://doi.org/10.1287/msom.2023.0531 .

Manufacturing & Service Operations ManagementVol. 27(4)
Beijing Institute of Technology (CN), George Washington University (US), Fudan University (CN), Decision Sciences (United States) (US)
Partnerships for the goals
Openalex Percentile: Top 4%
Risk and Portfolio Optimization
6.32
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.