]>
In this section we will study a wonderful problem known variously as the secretary problem or the marriage problem. It is simple to state and not difficult to solve, but the solution is interesting and a bit surprising. Also, the problem serves as a nice introduction to the general area of statistical decision making.
As always, we must start with a clear statement of the problem. We have candidates (perhaps applicants for a job or possible marriage partners). Here are our assumptions:
The assumptions, of course, are not entirely reasonable in real applications. The last assumption, for example, that is known, is more appropriate for the secretary interpretation than for the marriage interpretation.
What is an optimal strategy? What is the probability of success with this strategy? What happens to the strategy and the probability of success as ? In particular, when is large, is there any reasonable hope of finding the best candidate?
Play the secretary game several times with candidates. See if you can find a good strategy just by trial and error.
After playing the secretary game a few times, it should be clear that the only reasonable type of strategy is to let a certain number
of the candidates go by, and then select the first candidate we see who is better than all of the previous candidates (if she exists). If she does not exist (that is, if no candidate better than all previous candidates appears), we will agree to accept the last candidate, even though this means failure. The parameter
must be between 1 and
; if
,
we select the first candidate; if
,
we select the last candidate; for any other value of
, the selected candidate is random, distributed on
.
We will refer to this let
go by
strategy as strategy
Thus, we need to compute the probability of success using strategy with candidates. Then we can maximize the probability over to find the optimal strategy, and then take the limit over to study the asymptotics.
First, let's do some basic computations.
For the case , list the 6 permutations of . and verify the probabilities in the table below. Note that is optimal.
| 1 | 2 | 3 | |
Play the secretary game several times with candidates using the following strategies. See if you can detect a difference in the performance.
For the case , list the 24 permutations of . and verify the probabilities in the table below. Note that is optimal.
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |
Play the secretary game several times with candidates using the following strategies. See if you can detect a difference in the performance.
For the case , list the 120 permutations of . and verify the probabilities in the table below. Note that is optimal.
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
Play the secretary game several times with candidates using the following strategies. See if you can detect a difference in the performance.
Well, clearly we don't want to keep doing this. Let's see if we can find a general analysis. With candidates, let denote the number (arrival order) of the best candidate, and let denote the event of success for strategy (we select the best candidate).
Argue that since the candidates arrive in random order, is uniformly distributed on .
Argue that
The two cases are illustrated below. The large dot indicates the best candidate. Red dots indicate candidates that are rejected out of hand, while blue dots indicte candidates that are considered.
Use the results of the previous exercise and a conitioning argument to show that
Values of the function can be computed by hand for small and by a computer algebra system for moderate . The graph of is shown below. Note the concave downward shape of the graph and the optimal value of , which turns out to be 38. The optimal probability is about 0.37104.
The optimal strategy , the ratio , and the optimal probability of finding the best candidate, as functions of are given in the following table:
| Candidates | Optimal strategy | Ratio | Optimal probability |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3 | 2 | 0.6667 | 0.5000 |
| 4 | 2 | 0.5000 | 0.4853 |
| 5 | 3 | 0.6000 | 0.4333 |
| 6 | 3 | 0.5000 | 0.4278 |
| 7 | 3 | 0.4286 | 0.4143 |
| 8 | 4 | 0.5000 | 0.4098 |
| 9 | 4 | 0.4444 | 0.4060 |
| 10 | 4 | 0.4000 | 0.3987 |
| 11 | 5 | 0.4545 | 0.3984 |
| 12 | 5 | 0.4167 | 0.3955 |
| 13 | 6 | 0.4615 | 0.3923 |
| 14 | 6 | 0.4286 | 0.3917 |
| 15 | 6 | 0.4000 | 0.3894 |
| 16 | 7 | 0.4375 | 0.3881 |
| 17 | 7 | 0.4118 | 0.3873 |
| 18 | 7 | 0.3889 | 0.3854 |
| 19 | 8 | 0.4211 | 0.3850 |
| 20 | 8 | 0.4000 | 0.3842 |
Apparently, as we might expect, the optimal strategy increases and the optimal probability decreases as increases On the other hand, it's encouraging, and a bit surprising, that the optmal probabiliity does not appear to be decreasing to 0. It's perhaps least clear what's going on with the ratio. Graphical displays of some of the information in the table may help:
![]() |
![]() |
Could it be that the ratio and the probability are both converging, and moreover, are converging to the same number? First let's try to establish rigorously some of the trends observed in the table.
Show that
Give a probabilistic argument that the optimal probability decreases as increases.
We are natrually interested in the asymptotic behavior of the function , and the optimal strategy as . The key is recognizing as a Riemann sum for a simple integral. (Riemann sums, of course, are named for Georg Riemann.)
Show that
Recognize the sum in the previous exercise as the left Riemann sum for the the function corresponding to the partition of the interval into subintervals of length each:
From the previous two exercises, it follows that
More rigorously, suppose that depends on and that as . Thus, is the limiting proportion of the candidates that we reject out of hand.
Show that as .
The graph below shows the true probabilities and the limiting values as a function of with .
It's easy to maximize the limiting function.
Show that the maximum value of occurs at and the maximum value is also .
Thus, the magic number occurs twice in the problem. For large :
The article "Who Solved the Secretary Problem?" by Tom Ferguson has an interesting historical discussion of the problem, including speculation that Johannes Kepler may have used the optimal strategy to choose his second wife. The article also discusses several generalizations of the problem.