Conformalized Decision Risk Assessment

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2505.13243v1
• Date: Mon, 19 May 2025 15:24:38 GMT
• Title: Conformalized Decision Risk Assessment
• Authors: Wenbin Zhou, Agni Orfanoudaki, Shixiang Zhu,
• Abstract summary: We introduce CREDO, a novel framework that quantifies for any candidate decision, a distribution-free upper bound on the probability that the decision is suboptimal.<n>By combining inverse optimization geometry with conformal prediction and generative modeling, CREDO produces risk certificates that are both statistically rigorous and practically interpretable.
• Score: 5.391713612899277
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: High-stakes decisions in domains such as healthcare, energy, and public policy are often made by human experts using domain knowledge and heuristics, yet are increasingly supported by predictive and optimization-based tools. A dominant approach in operations research is the predict-then-optimize paradigm, where a predictive model estimates uncertain inputs, and an optimization model recommends a decision. However, this approach often lacks interpretability and can fail under distributional uncertainty -- particularly when the outcome distribution is multi-modal or complex -- leading to brittle or misleading decisions. In this paper, we introduce CREDO, a novel framework that quantifies, for any candidate decision, a distribution-free upper bound on the probability that the decision is suboptimal. By combining inverse optimization geometry with conformal prediction and generative modeling, CREDO produces risk certificates that are both statistically rigorous and practically interpretable. This framework enables human decision-makers to audit and validate their own decisions under uncertainty, bridging the gap between algorithmic tools and real-world judgment.

Related papers

• A Principled Approach to Randomized Selection under Uncertainty: Applications to Peer Review and Grant Funding [68.43987626137512]
  We propose a principled framework for randomized decision-making based on interval estimates of the quality of each item.<n>We introduce MERIT, an optimization-based method that maximizes the worst-case expected number of top candidates selected.<n>We prove that MERIT satisfies desirable axiomatic properties not guaranteed by existing approaches.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-23T19:59:30Z)
• Conformal Prediction and Human Decision Making [24.565425060007474]
  Methods to quantify uncertainty in predictions from arbitrary models are in demand in high-stakes domains like medicine and finance.<n>Conformal prediction has emerged as a popular method for producing a set of predictions with specified average coverage.<n>However, the value of conformal prediction sets to assist human decisions remains elusive due to the murky relationship between coverage guarantees and decision makers' goals and strategies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-12T18:18:09Z)
• Beyond Predictions: A Participatory Framework for Multi-Stakeholder Decision-Making [3.3044728148521623]
  We propose a novel participatory framework that redefines decision-making as a multi-stakeholder optimization problem.<n>Our framework captures each actor's preferences through context-dependent reward functions.<n>We introduce a synthetic scoring mechanism that exploits user-defined preferences across multiple metrics to rank decision-making strategies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-12T16:27:40Z)
• Decision Theoretic Foundations for Conformal Prediction: Optimal Uncertainty Quantification for Risk-Averse Agents [24.938391962245877]
  We develop decision-theoretic foundations that connect uncertainty using prediction sets with risk-averse decision-making.<n>We experimentally demonstrate the significant advantages of Risk-Averse (RAC) in applications such as medical diagnosis and recommendation systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-04T18:37:10Z)
• 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)
• Benchmarking PtO and PnO Methods in the Predictive Combinatorial Optimization Regime [59.27851754647913]
  Predictive optimization is the precise modeling of many real-world applications, including energy cost-aware scheduling and budget allocation on advertising. We develop a modular framework to benchmark 11 existing PtO/PnO methods on 8 problems, including a new industrial dataset for advertising. Our study shows that PnO approaches are better than PtO on 7 out of 8 benchmarks, but there is no silver bullet found for the specific design choices of PnO.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-13T13:19:34Z)
• Likelihood Ratio Confidence Sets for Sequential Decision Making [51.66638486226482]
  We revisit the likelihood-based inference principle and propose to use likelihood ratios to construct valid confidence sequences. Our method is especially suitable for problems with well-specified likelihoods. We show how to provably choose the best sequence of estimators and shed light on connections to online convex optimization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-08T00:10:21Z)
• Bridging the gap: Towards an Expanded Toolkit for AI-driven Decision-Making in the Public Sector [6.693502127460251]
  AI-driven decision-making systems are becoming instrumental in the public sector, with applications spanning areas like criminal justice, social welfare, financial fraud detection, and public health. These systems face the challenge of aligning machine learning (ML) models with the complex realities of public sector decision-making. We examine five key challenges where misalignment can occur, including distribution shifts, label bias, the influence of past decision-making on the data side, as well as competing objectives and human-in-the-loop on the model output side.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-29T17:44:48Z)
• Robust Design and Evaluation of Predictive Algorithms under Unobserved Confounding [2.8498944632323755]
  We propose a unified framework for the robust design and evaluation of predictive algorithms in selectively observed data. We impose general assumptions on how much the outcome may vary on average between unselected and selected units. We develop debiased machine learning estimators for the bounds on a large class of predictive performance estimands.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-19T20:41:44Z)
• On the Complexity of Adversarial Decision Making [101.14158787665252]
  We show that the Decision-Estimation Coefficient is necessary and sufficient to obtain low regret for adversarial decision making. We provide new structural results that connect the Decision-Estimation Coefficient to variants of other well-known complexity measures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-27T06:20:37Z)
• Explainability's Gain is Optimality's Loss? -- How Explanations Bias Decision-making [0.0]
  Explanations help to facilitate communication between the algorithm and the human decision-maker. Feature-based explanations' semantics of causal models induce leakage from the decision-maker's prior beliefs. Such differences can lead to sub-optimal and biased decision outcomes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-17T11:43:42Z)
• Off-Policy Evaluation with Policy-Dependent Optimization Response [90.28758112893054]
  We develop a new framework for off-policy evaluation with a textitpolicy-dependent linear optimization response. We construct unbiased estimators for the policy-dependent estimand by a perturbation method. We provide a general algorithm for optimizing causal interventions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-02-25T20:25:37Z)
• Leveraging Expert Consistency to Improve Algorithmic Decision Support [62.61153549123407]
  We explore the use of historical expert decisions as a rich source of information that can be combined with observed outcomes to narrow the construct gap. We propose an influence function-based methodology to estimate expert consistency indirectly when each case in the data is assessed by a single expert. Our empirical evaluation, using simulations in a clinical setting and real-world data from the child welfare domain, indicates that the proposed approach successfully narrows the construct gap.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-01-24T05:40:29Z)
• When Does Uncertainty Matter?: Understanding the Impact of Predictive Uncertainty in ML Assisted Decision Making [68.19284302320146]
  We carry out user studies to assess how people with differing levels of expertise respond to different types of predictive uncertainty. We found that showing posterior predictive distributions led to smaller disagreements with the ML model's predictions. This suggests that posterior predictive distributions can potentially serve as useful decision aids which should be used with caution and take into account the type of distribution and the expertise of the human.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-11-12T02:23:53Z)

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.