There is increasing interest in ``decision-focused" machine learning methods which train models to account for how their predictions are used in downstream optimization problems. Doing so can often improve performance on subsequent decision problems. However, current methods for uncertainty quantification do not incorporate any information at all about downstream decisions. We develop a framework based on conformal prediction to produce prediction sets that account for a downstream decision loss function, making them more appropriate to inform high-stakes decision-making. Our approach harnesses the strengths of conformal methods—modularity, model-agnosticism, and statistical coverage guarantees—while incorporating downstream decisions and user-specified utility functions. We prove that our methods retain standard coverage guarantees. Empirical evaluation across a range of datasets and utility metrics demonstrates that our methods achieve significantly lower decision loss compared to standard conformal methods. Additionally, we present a real-world use case in healthcare diagnosis, where our method effectively incorporates the hierarchical structure of dermatological diseases. It successfully generates sets with coherent diagnostic meaning, aiding the triage process during dermatology diagnosis and illustrating how our method can ground high-stakes decision-making on external domain knowledge.

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) generate guarantees for treatment effects. However, RCTs often spend unnecessary resources exploring sub-optimal treatments, which can reduce the power of treatment guarantees. To address this, we propose a two-stage RCT design. In the first stage, a data-driven screening procedure prunes low-impact treatments, while the second stage focuses on developing high-probability lower bounds for the best-performing treatment effect. Unlike existing adaptive RCT frameworks, our method is simple enough to be implemented in scenarios with limited adaptivity. We derive optimal designs for two-stage RCTs and demonstrate how such designs can be implemented through sample splitting. Empirically, we demonstrate that two-stage designs improve upon single-stage approaches, especially for scenarios where domain knowledge is available through a prior. Our work is thus, a simple yet effective design for RCTs, optimizing for the ability to certify with high probability the largest possible treatment effect for at least one of the arms studied.

Large-scale datasets are increasingly being used to inform decision making. While this effort aims to ground policy in real-world evidence, challenges have arisen as selection bias and other forms of distribution shifts often plague observational data. Previous attempts to provide robust inference have given guarantees depending on a user-specified amount of possible distribution shift (e.g., the maximum KL divergence between the observed and target distributions). However, decision makers will often have additional knowledge about the target distribution which constrains the kind of possible shifts. To leverage such information, we propose a framework that enables statistical inference in the presence of selection bias which obeys user-specified constraints in the form of functions whose expectation is known under the target distribution. The output is high-probability bounds on the value of an estimand for the target distribution. Hence, our method leverages domain knowledge in order to partially identify a wide class of estimands. We analyze the computational and statistical properties of methods to estimate these bounds and show that our method can produce informative bounds on a variety of simulated and semisynthetic tasks, as well as in a real-world use case.

We provide practical, efficient, and nonparametric methods for auditing the fairness of deployed classification and regression models. Whereas previous work relies on a fixed-sample size, our methods are sequential and allow for the continuous monitoring of incoming data, making them highly amenable to tracking the fairness of real-world systems. We also allow the data to be collected by a probabilistic policy as opposed to sampled uniformly from the population. This enables auditing to be conducted on data gathered for another purpose. Moreover, this policy may change over time and different policies may be used on different subpopulations. Finally, our methods can handle distribution shift resulting from either changes to the model or changes in the underlying population. Our approach is based on recent progress in anytime-valid inference and game-theoretic statistics---the ``testing by betting'' framework in particular. These connections ensure that our methods are interpretable, fast, and easy to implement. We demonstrate the efficacy of our approach on three benchmark fairness datasets.