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.

Predictions and generations from large language models are increasingly being explored as an aid in limited data regimes, such as in computational social science and human subjects research. While prior technical work has mainly explored the potential to use model-predicted labels for unlabeled data in a principled manner, there is increasing interest in using large language models to generate entirely new synthetic samples (e.g., synthetic simulations), such as in responses to surveys. However, it remains unclear by what means practitioners can combine such data with real data and yet produce statistically valid conclusions upon them. In this paper, we introduce a new estimator based on generalized method of moments, providing a hyperparameter-free solution with strong theoretical guarantees to address this challenge. Intriguingly, we find that interactions between the moment residuals of synthetic data and those of real data (i.e., when they are predictive of each other) can greatly improve estimates of the target parameter. We validate the finite-sample performance of our estimator across different tasks in computational social science applications, demonstrating large empirical gains.

A fundamental problem in decision-making systems is the presence of inequity along demographic lines. However, inequity can be difficult to quantify, particularly if our notion of equity relies on hard-to-measure notions like risk (e.g., equal access to treatment for those who would die without it). Auditing such inequity requires accurate measurements of individual risk, which is difficult to estimate in the realistic setting of unobserved confounding. In the case that these unobservables “explain” an apparent disparity, we may understate or overstate inequity. In this paper, we show that one can still give informative bounds on allocation rates among high-risk individuals, even while relaxing or (surprisingly) even when eliminating the assumption that all relevant risk factors are observed. We utilize the fact that in many real-world settings (e.g., the introduction of a novel treatment) we have data from a period prior to any allocation, to derive unbiased estimates of risk. We apply our framework to a real-world setting of Paxlovid allocation to COVID-19 patients, finding that observed racial inequity cannot be explained by unobserved confounders of the same strength as important observed covariates.

Recent studies have shown that performance on downstream optimization tasks often diverges from standard accuracy-based losses, highlighting that the loss function of a predictive model should align with the decision task of the downstream optimizer. Despite this observation, no work{—} to our knowledge{—}has yet examined the impact of this divergence for distribution shift. In this paper, we demonstrate that worst-case distribution shifts identified by traditional average accuracy-based metrics fundamentally differ from those for the downstream decision task at hand. We introduce a novel framework that employs a hierarchical model structure to identify worst-case distribution shifts in predictive resource allocation settings. This task is more difficult than in standard distribution shift settings because of combinatorial interactions, where decisions depend on the joint presence of individuals in the allocation task. We show that the problem can be reformulated as a submodular optimization problem, enabling efficient approximations, to capture shifts both within and across instances of the optimization problem.