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.

Data-driven optimization aims to translate a machine learning model into decision-making by optimizing decisions on estimated costs. Such a pipeline can be conducted by fitting a distributional model which is then plugged into the target optimization problem. While this fitting can utilize traditional methods such as maximum likelihood, a more recent approach uses estimation-optimization integration that minimizes decision error instead of estimation error. Although intuitive, the statistical benefit of the latter approach is not well understood yet is important to guide the prescriptive usage of machine learning. In this paper, we dissect the performance comparisons between these approaches in terms of the amount of model misspecification. In particular, we show how the integrated approach offers a ``universal double benefit'' on the top two dominating terms of regret when the underlying model is misspecified, while the traditional approach can be advantageous when the model is nearly well-specified. Our comparison is powered by finite-sample tail regret bounds that are derived via new higher-order expansions of regrets and the leveraging of a recent Berry-Esseen theorem.