We begin by characterizing the space of elements that test an agent's ability to optimally allocate1031 their limited resources to goods and services they desire. In economics and decision theory, the1032 most primitive approach to describing the preferences of decision-makers is to use a function that1033 maps a set of possible choices to the agent's optimal choice within that set. Under a set of intuitive1034 assumptions, such as transitivity (i.e., if bundle X is preferred to bundle Y, and Y is preferred to1035 bundle Z, then X must be preferred to Z), it becomes possible to "rationalize" preferences by instead1036 describing a utility function. This function assigns a real number to each bundle, and the agent selects1037 the bundle with the highest utility.1038 In this paper, we focus on these "rationalizable" preferences, where agent choice can be implemented1039 as utility maximization constrained by prices and income. The solution to these consumer choice1040 problems provides ...

Many decision-making processes involve evaluating and selecting items, including scientific peer review, job hiring, school admissions, and investment decisions. These domains feature error-prone evaluations and uncertainty about outcomes, which undermine deterministic selection rules. Consequently, randomized selection mechanisms are gaining traction. However, current randomized approaches are ad hoc and, as we prove, inappropriate for their purported objectives. We propose a principled framework for randomized decision-making based on interval estimates of item quality. We introduce MERIT (Maximin Efficient Randomized Interval Top-k), which maximizes the worst-case expected number of top candidates selected under uncertainty represented by overlapping intervals. MERIT provides optimal resource allocation under an interpretable robustness notion. We develop a polynomial-time, practically efficient algorithm and prove our approach satisfies desirable axiomatic properties not guaranteed by existing methods. Experiments on synthetic peer review data from grant funding and conferences demonstrate that MERIT matches existing algorithms' expected utility under fully probabilistic models while outperforming them under our worst-case formulation.

Machine learning-based decision support systems are increasingly deployed in clinical settings, where probabilistic scoring functions are used to inform and prioritize patient management decisions. However, widely used scoring rules, such as accuracy and AUC-ROC, fail to adequately reflect key clinical priorities, including calibration, robustness to distributional shifts, and sensitivity to asymmetric error costs. In this work, we propose a principled yet practical evaluation framework for selecting calibrated thresholded classifiers that explicitly accounts for uncertainty in class prevalences and domain-specific cost asymmetries. Building on the theory of proper scoring rules, particularly the Schervish representation, we derive an adjusted variant of cross-entropy (log score) that averages cost-weighted performance over clinically relevant ranges of class balance. The resulting evaluation is simple to apply, sensitive to clinical deployment conditions, and designed to prioritize models that are both calibrated and robust to real-world variations.

Recent work has formalized the reward hypothesis through the lens of expected utility theory, by interpreting reward as utility. Hausner's foundational work showed that dropping the continuity axiom leads to a generalization of expected utility theory where utilities are lexicographically ordered vectors of arbitrary dimension. In this paper, we extend this result by identifying a simple and practical condition under which preferences in a Markov Decision Process (MDP) cannot be represented by scalar rewards, necessitating a 2-dimensional reward function. We provide a full characterization of such reward functions, as well as the general d-dimensional case under a memorylessness assumption on preferences. Furthermore, we show that optimal policies in this setting retain many desirable properties of their scalar-reward counterparts, while in the Constrained MDP (CMDP) setting -- another common multiobjective setting -- they do not.

Machine learning-based decision support systems are increasingly deployed in clinical settings, where probabilistic scoring functions are used to inform and prioritize patient management decisions. However, widely used scoring rules, such as accuracy and AUC-ROC, fail to adequately reflect key clinical priorities, including calibration, robustness to distributional shifts, and sensitivity to asymmetric error costs. In this work, we propose a principled yet practical evaluation framework for selecting calibrated thresholded classifiers that explicitly accounts for uncertainty in class prevalences and domain-specific cost asymmetries. Building on the theory of proper scoring rules, particularly the Schervish representation, we derive an adjusted variant of cross-entropy (log score) that averages cost-weighted performance over clinically relevant ranges of class balance. The resulting evaluation is simple to apply, sensitive to clinical deployment conditions, and designed to prioritize models that are both calibrated and robust to real-world variations.

Bayesian optimal experimental design (BOED) selects experiments to maximize information gain about model parameters. However, in decision-critical settings, reducing parameter uncertainty does not necessarily improve downstream decisions, as only specific parameter directions relevant to the objective truly matter. We propose GoBOED, a goal-driven BOED framework that directly optimizes experimental designs for a specified decision-making objective. GoBOED combines an amortized variational posterior surrogate with a differentiable convex decision layer, enabling gradient-based design optimization that is fully decision-focused. We theoretically show that GoBOED gradients are insensitive to parameter directions irrelevant to the decision objective, providing a formal justification for why goal-driven design achieves equivalent decision quality over a wider set of experimental designs than information-gain maximization. Empirically, across source localization, epidemic management, and pharmacokinetic control, GoBOED identifies designs that better align with downstream decision objectives and reveals that near-optimal design windows are substantially wider than those predicted by goal-agnostic BOED approaches.

Subjective expected utility theory assumes that decision-makers possess unlimited computational resources to reason about their choices; however, virtually all decisions in everyday life are made under resource constraints--i.e.

Decision support systems based on prediction sets help humans solve multiclass classification tasks by narrowing down the set of potential label values to a subset of them, namely a prediction set, and asking them to always predict label values from the prediction sets. While this type of systems have been proven to be effective at improving the average accuracy of the predictions made by humans, by restricting human agency, they may cause harm---a human who has succeeded at predicting the ground-truth label of an instance on their own may have failed had they used these systems. In this paper, our goal is to control how frequently a decision support system based on prediction sets may cause harm, by design. To this end, we start by characterizing the above notion of harm using the theoretical framework of structural causal models. Then, we show that, under a natural, albeit unverifiable, monotonicity assumption, we can estimate how frequently a system may cause harm using only predictions made by humans on their own. Further, we also show that, under a weaker monotonicity assumption, which can be verified experimentally, we can bound how frequently a system may cause harm again using only predictions made by humans on their own. Building upon these assumptions, we introduce a computational framework to design decision support systems based on prediction sets that are guaranteed to cause harm less frequently than a user-specified value using conformal risk control. We validate our framework using real human predictions from two different human subject studies and show that, in decision support systems based on prediction sets, there is a trade-off between accuracy and counterfactual harm.

Subjective expected utility theory assumes that decision-makers possess unlimited computational resources to reason about their choices; however, virtually all decisions in everyday life are made under resource constraints---i.e.