Papers for

data-driven decision teams

Papers whose findings have a practical use for this group, as judged from the abstract. Open a paper to read what it means in practice.

New method optimizes staged decisions for better search results

The Staged Pandora's Box: Reservation Indices for Multi-Fidelity Bayesian Optimization

Abstract: A staged search must decide which candidate to advance next and when to stop. Some observations only inform later decisions; others can be kept as results. We formulate these choices as a staged Pandora's box with a designated set of collectable stages. For independent finite-stage candidates with bounded readings and positive bounded own-history costs, an exact covered-call recursion gives the reservation index, the optimal value and the loss of every advance or stop; advancing an index-maximal candidate while its index exceeds the incumbent is optimal. The representation recovers classical single-stage search, nested inspection and the all-collectable Markov setting, and prices changes in the problem: enlarging the collectable set or lowering costs raises the value by an explicit covered-call overshoot. Resumption can be valuable even when future reward laws do not change, but has no value for deterministic readings. With information sharing across candidates, no rule using only their separate remaining-reading laws is universally optimal, and making an intermediate reading collectable can change which candidate is inspected first. Under a coherent joint path law with own-history costs, an approximate-planning bound controls the recomputed index's regret by changes in untouched candidates' local values; a common-component specialization bounds those changes through predictive total-variation dispersion. Exact finite-law experiments check the representation, the loss accounting and the bounds.

Mon 2 NovMachine Learning
The gist
Sometimes when looking for the best choice, you have to decide not only which option to check next but also when to stop searching. The authors study these decisions as a special kind of problem where some observations can be saved while others only help later. They develop a mathematical way to find the best strategy for advancing or stopping, improving on past methods by handling complex cases where the information changes during the search. Their approach also explains when saving intermediate results or continuing the search is useful and when it is not.
Open → 2611.02722v1

Sharp and stable verification of predictors without labeled data

Sharp and Stable Label-Free Calibration Certificates from Logical Coherence

Abstract: Query-conditioned probabilistic predictors answer logically related questions one at a time, and labels to check their calibration are often missing. For each restriction on what a bettor's stakes may use, a minimax theorem identifies, for finitely supported laws of the answers, the sharp label-free lower bound on the corresponding calibration residual. On bundles of different events its mean, marginal and joint stages can separate strictly, and a bundle's bound cannot be attributed to one question without assumptions on the others. The sharp marginal bound is discontinuous in the answers, and no label-free lower bound continuous in the Wasserstein distance stays within a constant factor of it. Lipschitz stakes give a stable bound, sharp for a smooth calibration residual and, for every positive Lipschitz constant, positive exactly when the sharp marginal bound is. On i.i.d. streams, projected online gradient ascent at fixed nodes gives fixed-horizon certificates whose shortfall is bounded by grid, learning and statistical terms, and predictable betting gives anytime-valid ones. In a preregistered study of four predictors on two data sets, all seven confirmatory certificates were positive (the eighth pair did not pass the pilot). A certificate shows only that calibration is at least this bad; zero means "not refuted".

Thu 15 OctMachine Learning
The gist
Sometimes, you want to check if a system's predictions are trustworthy, but you don’t have the right answers to compare against. The authors developed a new way to measure how well predictions are calibrated using only the predictions themselves, no labels needed. Their method can provide a minimum level of how much the predictions deviate from being perfectly calibrated, and these measurements remain reliable even when predictions change. They also tested their approach on real data and found that it consistently flagged imperfect calibration.
Open → 2610.21567v1