Paper detail

The Secretary Problem with Predictions and a Chosen Order

We study a learning-augmented variant of the secretary problem, recently introduced by Fujii and Yoshida (2023), in which the decision-maker has access to machine-learned predictions of candidate values. The central challenge is to balance consistency and robustness: when predictions are accurate, the algorithm should select a near-optimal secretary, while under inaccurate predictions it should still guarantee a bounded competitive ratio. We consider both the classical Random Order Secretary Problem (ROSP), where candidates arrive in a uniformly random order, and a more natural learning-augmented model in which the decision-maker may choose the arrival order based on predicted values. We call this model the Chosen Order Secretary Problem (COSP), capturing scenarios such as interview schedules set in advance. We propose a new randomized algorithm applicable to both ROSP and COSP. Our method switches from fully trusting predictions to a threshold-based rule once a large prediction deviation is detected. Let $ε\in [0,1]$ denote the maximum multiplicative prediction error. For ROSP, our algorithm achieves a competitive ratio of $\max\{0.221, (1-ε)/(1+ε)\}$, improving upon the prior bound of $\max\{0.215, (1-ε)/(1+ε)\}$. For COSP, we achieve $\max\{0.262, (1-ε)/(1+ε)\}$, surpassing the $0.25$ worst-case bound for prior approaches and moving closer to the classical secretary benchmark of $1/e \approx 0.368$. These results highlight the benefit of combining predictions with arrival-order control in online decision-making.

preprint2026arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.