Data-driven decision-making under uncertainty with entropic risk measure

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2409.19926v1
• Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2024 04:02:52 GMT
• Title: Data-driven decision-making under uncertainty with entropic risk measure
• Authors: Utsav Sadana, Erick Delage, Angelos Georghiou,
• Abstract summary: The entropic risk measure is widely used in high-stakes decision making to account for tail risks associated with an uncertain loss. To debias the empirical entropic risk estimator, we propose a strongly consistent bootstrapping procedure. We show that cross validation methods can result in significantly higher out-of-sample risk for the insurer if the bias in validation performance is not corrected for.
• Score: 5.407319151576265
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: The entropic risk measure is widely used in high-stakes decision making to account for tail risks associated with an uncertain loss. With limited data, the empirical entropic risk estimator, i.e. replacing the expectation in the entropic risk measure with a sample average, underestimates the true risk. To debias the empirical entropic risk estimator, we propose a strongly asymptotically consistent bootstrapping procedure. The first step of the procedure involves fitting a distribution to the data, whereas the second step estimates the bias of the empirical entropic risk estimator using bootstrapping, and corrects for it. We show that naively fitting a Gaussian Mixture Model to the data using the maximum likelihood criterion typically leads to an underestimation of the risk. To mitigate this issue, we consider two alternative methods: a more computationally demanding one that fits the distribution of empirical entropic risk, and a simpler one that fits the extreme value distribution. As an application of the approach, we study a distributionally robust entropic risk minimization problem with type-$\infty$ Wasserstein ambiguity set, where debiasing the validation performance using our techniques significantly improves the calibration of the size of the ambiguity set. Furthermore, we propose a distributionally robust optimization model for a well-studied insurance contract design problem. The model considers multiple (potential) policyholders that have dependent risks and the insurer and policyholders use entropic risk measure. We show that cross validation methods can result in significantly higher out-of-sample risk for the insurer if the bias in validation performance is not corrected for. This improvement can be explained from the observation that our methods suggest a higher (and more accurate) premium to homeowners.

Related papers

• Data-Adaptive Tradeoffs among Multiple Risks in Distribution-Free Prediction [55.77015419028725]
  We develop methods that permit valid control of risk when threshold and tradeoff parameters are chosen adaptively. Our methodology supports monotone and nearly-monotone risks, but otherwise makes no distributional assumptions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-28T17:28:06Z)
• Predictive Uncertainty Quantification via Risk Decompositions for Strictly Proper Scoring Rules [7.0549244915538765]
  Uncertainty in predictive modeling often relies on ad hoc methods. This paper introduces a theoretical approach to understanding uncertainty through statistical risks. We show how to split pointwise risk into Bayes risk and excess risk.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-16T14:40:22Z)
• Model-Based Epistemic Variance of Values for Risk-Aware Policy Optimization [59.758009422067]
  We consider the problem of quantifying uncertainty over expected cumulative rewards in model-based reinforcement learning. We propose a new uncertainty Bellman equation (UBE) whose solution converges to the true posterior variance over values. We introduce a general-purpose policy optimization algorithm, Q-Uncertainty Soft Actor-Critic (QU-SAC) that can be applied for either risk-seeking or risk-averse policy optimization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-07T15:55:58Z)
• Domain Generalization without Excess Empirical Risk [83.26052467843725]
  A common approach is designing a data-driven surrogate penalty to capture generalization and minimize the empirical risk jointly with the penalty. We argue that a significant failure mode of this recipe is an excess risk due to an erroneous penalty or hardness in joint optimization. We present an approach that eliminates this problem. Instead of jointly minimizing empirical risk with the penalty, we minimize the penalty under the constraint of optimality of the empirical risk.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-30T08:46:46Z)
• Selecting Models based on the Risk of Damage Caused by Adversarial Attacks [2.969705152497174]
  Regulation, legal liabilities, and societal concerns challenge the adoption of AI in safety and security-critical applications. One of the key concerns is that adversaries can cause harm by manipulating model predictions without being detected. We propose a method to model and statistically estimate the probability of damage arising from adversarial attacks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-28T10:24:38Z)
• A Risk-Sensitive Approach to Policy Optimization [21.684251937825234]
  Standard deep reinforcement learning (DRL) aims to maximize expected reward, considering collected experiences equally in formulating a policy. We propose a more direct approach whereby risk-sensitive objectives, specified in terms of the cumulative distribution function (CDF) of the distribution of full-episode rewards, are optimized. We demonstrate that the use of moderately "pessimistic" risk profiles, which emphasize scenarios where the agent performs poorly, leads to enhanced exploration and a continual focus on addressing deficiencies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-08-19T00:55:05Z)
• Mitigating multiple descents: A model-agnostic framework for risk monotonization [84.6382406922369]
  We develop a general framework for risk monotonization based on cross-validation. We propose two data-driven methodologies, namely zero- and one-step, that are akin to bagging and boosting.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-25T17:41:40Z)
• Efficient Risk-Averse Reinforcement Learning [79.61412643761034]
  In risk-averse reinforcement learning (RL), the goal is to optimize some risk measure of the returns. We prove that under certain conditions this inevitably leads to a local-optimum barrier, and propose a soft risk mechanism to bypass it. We demonstrate improved risk aversion in maze navigation, autonomous driving, and resource allocation benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-10T19:40:52Z)
• Holdouts set for predictive model updating [0.9749560288448114]
  Updating risk scores can lead to biased risk estimates. We propose using a holdout set' - a subset of the population that does not receive interventions guided by the risk score. We prove that this approach enables total costs to grow at a rate $Oleft(N2/3right)$ for a population of size $N$, and argue that in general circumstances there is no competitive alternative.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-02-13T18:04:00Z)
• Learning Bounds for Risk-sensitive Learning [86.50262971918276]
  In risk-sensitive learning, one aims to find a hypothesis that minimizes a risk-averse (or risk-seeking) measure of loss. We study the generalization properties of risk-sensitive learning schemes whose optimand is described via optimized certainty equivalents.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-15T05:25:02Z)
• Deep Survival Machines: Fully Parametric Survival Regression and Representation Learning for Censored Data with Competing Risks [14.928328404160299]
  We describe a new approach to estimating relative risks in time-to-event prediction problems with censored data. Our approach does not require making strong assumptions of constant proportional hazard of the underlying survival distribution. This is the first work involving fully parametric estimation of survival times with competing risks in the presence of censoring.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-03-02T20:21:59Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.