A comparison of two procedures to select the best binomial population with sequential elimination of inferior populations

We compare the selection procedure of Levin and Robbins [1981. Selecting the highest probability in binomial or multinomial trials. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 78, 4663–4666.] with the procedure of Paulson [1994. Sequential procedures for selecting the best one of k Koopman–Darmois populations. Sequential Analysis 13, 207–220.] to identify the best of several binomial populations with sequential elimination of unlikely candidates. We point out situations in which the Levin–Robbins procedure dominates the Paulson procedure in terms of the duration of the experiment, the expected total number of observations, and the expected number of failures. Because the Levin–Robbins procedure is also easier to implement than Paulson's procedure and gives a tighter guarantee for the probability of correct selection, we conclude that it holds a competitive edge over Paulson's procedure.