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.

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.

For example, in personalized medical diagnostics, a model is built based on historical data to facilitate an optimal treatment for a new patient (Bica et al., 2021).

In this paper, we contribute to both theoretical analyses.

Credit risk models are a critical decision-support tool for financial institutions, yet tightening data-protection rules (e.g., GDPR, CCPA) increasingly prohibit cross-border sharing of borrower data, even as these models benefit from cross-institution learning. Traditional default prediction suffers from two limitations: binary classification ignores default timing, treating early defaulters (high loss) equivalently to late defaulters (low loss), and centralized training violates emerging regulatory constraints. We propose a Federated Survival Learning framework with Bayesian Differential Privacy (FSL-BDP) that models time-to-default trajectories without centralizing sensitive data. The framework provides Bayesian (data-dependent) differential privacy (DP) guarantees while enabling institutions to jointly learn risk dynamics. Experiments on three real-world credit datasets (LendingClub, SBA, Bondora) show that federation fundamentally alters the relative effectiveness of privacy mechanisms. While classical DP performs better than Bayesian DP in centralized settings, the latter benefits substantially more from federation (+7.0\% vs +1.4\%), achieving near parity of non-private performance and outperforming classical DP in the majority of participating clients. This ranking reversal yields a key decision-support insight: privacy mechanism selection should be evaluated in the target deployment architecture, rather than centralized benchmarks. These findings provide actionable guidance for practitioners designing privacy-preserving decision support systems in regulated, multi-institutional environments.

This paper investigates real-time decision support systems that leverage low-latency AI models, bringing together recent progress in holistic AI-driven decision tools, integration with Edge-IoT technologies, and approaches for effective human-AI teamwork. It looks into how large language models can assist decision-making, especially when resources are limited. The research also examines the effects of technical developments such as DeLLMa, methods for compressing models, and improvements for analytics on edge devices, while also addressing issues like limited resources and the need for adaptable frameworks. Through a detailed review, the paper offers practical perspectives on development strategies and areas of application, adding to the field by pointing out opportunities for more efficient and flexible AI-supported systems. The conclusions set the stage for future breakthroughs in this fast-changing area, highlighting how AI can reshape real-time decision support.

Healthcare AI systems have historically faced challenges in merging contextual reasoning, long-term state management, and human-verifiable workflows into a cohesive framework. This paper introduces a completely innovative architecture and concept: combining the Model Context Protocol (MCP) with a specific clinical application, known as MCP-AI. This integration allows intelligent agents to reason over extended periods, collaborate securely, and adhere to authentic clinical logic, representing a significant shift away from traditional Clinical Decision Support Systems (CDSS) and prompt-based Large Language Models (LLMs). As healthcare systems become more complex, the need for autonomous, context-aware clinical reasoning frameworks has become urgent. We present MCP-AI, a novel architecture for explainable medical decision-making built upon the Model Context Protocol (MCP) a modular, executable specification for orchestrating generative and descriptive AI agents in real-time workflows. Each MCP file captures clinical objectives, patient context, reasoning state, and task logic, forming a reusable and auditable memory object. Unlike conventional CDSS or stateless prompt-based AI systems, MCP-AI supports adaptive, longitudinal, and collaborative reasoning across care settings. MCP-AI is validated through two use cases: (1) diagnostic modeling of Fragile X Syndrome with comorbid depression, and (2) remote coordination for Type 2 Diabetes and hypertension. In either scenario, the protocol facilitates physician-in-the-loop validation, streamlines clinical processes, and guarantees secure transitions of AI responsibilities between healthcare providers. The system connects with HL7/FHIR interfaces and adheres to regulatory standards, such as HIPAA and FDA SaMD guidelines. MCP-AI provides a scalable basis for interpretable, composable, and safety-oriented AI within upcoming clinical environments.