Deciding When to Decide: Testing Operational Suboptimality Under Distributional Shift

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.29465v1
• Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2026 23:21:36 GMT
• Title: Deciding When to Decide: Testing Operational Suboptimality Under Distributional Shift
• Abstract summary: We propose textttRADAR (Regret-based Assessment of Decision Adequacy and Risk), a decision-focused framework that uses inverse optimization to infer latent preferences.<n>By targeting regret, textttRADAR ignores decision-irrelevant shifts while detecting changes that warrant re-optimization.
• Score: 6.370987174111389
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Deployed decisions are often optimized once and retained because updates impose operational, regulatory, or switching costs. As operating conditions change, when should such decisions be re-optimized? We study this question for stochastic optimization when the objective's functional form is known but the decision maker's trade-offs are encoded by an unknown preference parameter. Standard distribution-shift tests are poorly aligned with this goal: they can flag detectable yet decision-irrelevant changes without determining whether the incumbent decision has become materially suboptimal. We propose \texttt{RADAR} (Regret-based Assessment of Decision Adequacy and Risk), a decision-focused framework that uses inverse optimization to infer latent preferences and tests the deployed decision's optimality gap under the current distribution. By targeting regret, \texttt{RADAR} ignores decision-irrelevant shifts while detecting changes that warrant re-optimization. We develop two-sample and sequential changepoint procedures and establish asymptotic guarantees for Type-I error and power. Across synthetic optimization problems, a semi-synthetic capacity allocation task, and police-zone planning, \texttt{RADAR} more reliably distinguishes harmful from harmless shifts than decision-agnostic alternatives.

Related papers

• Reinforcement learning to choose optimizers [0.0]
  "Reinforcement Learning to Chooses" employs an algorithm choice as a sequential decision-making problem.<n>The portfolio includes gradient-based and derivative-frees, and each switch passes on the current best solution and a representative step size.<n>On unseen problems, the learned policy outperforms every portfolio at all but the smallest budgets, and it remains robust under distribution shift.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-01T19:35:31Z)
• Uncertainty-Aware Generation and Decision-Making Under Ambiguity [57.15357080072861]
  We present and evaluate various uncertainty-aware decision-making algorithms based on Bayesian decision theory and risk-averse decision making.<n>We find empirically that these algorithms can improve the utility of the generations but need to be carefully implemented when ambiguity is high.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-29T17:20:43Z)
• Dynamic Objective Selection with Safeguards and LLM Oversight for Financial Decision-Making [33.643275739813056]
  We propose DOSS (Dynamic Objective Selection with Safeguards), a learning-based selector that directly chooses the decision-relevant objective function at each time point.<n> DOSS formulates objective selection as a classification problem over objectives and performs sequential updates with a rolling window.<n>To mitigate misselection and excessive switching in deployment, DOSS applies confidence-aware gating with a fail-safe that overrides low-confidence proposals to a conservative default and enforces explicit controls tied to switching frequency.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-02T14:22:07Z)
• Learning Polyhedral Conformal Sets for Robust Optimization [10.504036065018216]
  We propose a decision-aware conformal framework that learns uncertainty sets tailored to robust optimization objectives.<n>Our approach parameterizes a flexible family of polyhedral sets via data-driven hyperplanes and learns their geometry by directly minimizing the induced robust loss.<n>We provide finite-sample coverage guarantees and bounds on the sub-optimality gap to an oracle decision.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-08T21:39:41Z)
• Position Paper: Post-Solve Robustness in Decision Engines: Feasible Regions and Smoothness Under Perturbations [0.913755431537592]
  Mixed-Integer Linear Programming (MILP) decision engines routinely output nominally optimal plans for high-stakes industrial systems.<n> deployment rarely matches solve-time assumptions.<n>Small perturbations in costs, demands, or resource availability can invalidate feasibility or trigger discontinuous shifts to qualitatively different solutions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-25T03:34:11Z)
• A Principled Approach to Randomized Selection under Uncertainty: Applications to Peer Review and Grant Funding [61.86327960322782]
  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)
• Treatment Effect Estimation for Optimal Decision-Making [65.30942348196443]
  We study optimal decision-making based on two-stage CATE estimators.<n>We propose a novel two-stage learning objective that retargets the CATE to balance CATE estimation error and decision performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-19T13:24:57Z)
• Safe Sequential Optimization for Switching Environments [0.0]
  We consider the problem of designing a sequential decision making agent to maximize an unknown time-varying function which switches with time. We propose a policy called Adaptive-SafeOpt and evaluate its performance via simulations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-03T05:41:42Z)
• Optimization's Neglected Normative Commitments [3.3388234549922027]
  A paradigm used to approach potentially high-stakes decisions, optimization relies on abstracting the real world to a set of decision(s), objective(s) and constraint(s) This paper describes the normative choices and assumptions that are necessarily part of using optimization. It then identifies six emergent problems that may be neglected.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-27T12:43:15Z)
• Generalizing Bayesian Optimization with Decision-theoretic Entropies [102.82152945324381]
  We consider a generalization of Shannon entropy from work in statistical decision theory. We first show that special cases of this entropy lead to popular acquisition functions used in BO procedures. We then show how alternative choices for the loss yield a flexible family of acquisition functions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-04T04:43:58Z)
• 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)
• Bandit Linear Optimization for Sequential Decision Making and Extensive-Form Games [102.23975166536326]
  Tree-form sequential decision making (TFSDM) extends classical one-shot decision making by modeling tree-form interactions between an agent and a potentially adversarial environment. It captures the online decision-making problems that each player faces in an extensive-form game, as well as Markov decision processes and partially-observable Markov decision processes where the agent conditions on observed history. In this paper, we give the first algorithm for the bandit linear optimization problem for dilatedDM that offers both (i) linear-time losses and (ii) $O(sqrtT)$ cumulative regret in
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-03-08T05:00:13Z)

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.