This habilitation thesis is cumulative and, therefore, is collecting and connecting research that I (together with several co-authors) have conducted over the last few years. Thus, the absolute core of the work is formed by the ten publications listed on page 5 under the name Contributions 1 to 10. The references to the complete versions of these articles are also found in this list, making them as easily accessible as possible for readers wishing to dive deep into the different research projects. The chapters following this thesis, namely Parts A to C and the concluding remarks, serve to place the articles in a larger scientific context, to (briefly) explain their respective content on a less formal level, and to highlight some interesting perspectives for future research in their respective contexts. Naturally, therefore, the following presentation has neither the level of detail nor the formal rigor that can (hopefully) be found in the papers. The purpose of the following text is to provide the reader an easy and high-level access to this interesting and important research field as a whole, thereby, advertising it to a broader audience.

In domains such as finance, healthcare, and robotics, managing worst-case scenarios is critical, as failure to do so can lead to catastrophic outcomes. Distributional Reinforcement Learning (DRL) provides a natural framework to incorporate risk sensitivity into decision-making processes. However, existing approaches face two key limitations: (1) the use of fixed risk measures at each decision step often results in overly conservative policies, and (2) the interpretation and theoretical properties of the learned policies remain unclear. While optimizing a static risk measure addresses these issues, its use in the DRL framework has been limited to the simple static CVaR risk measure. In this paper, we present a novel DRL algorithm with convergence guarantees that optimizes for a broader class of static Spectral Risk Measures (SRM). Additionally, we provide a clear interpretation of the learned policy by leveraging the distribution of returns in DRL and the decomposition of static coherent risk measures. Extensive experiments demonstrate that our model learns policies aligned with the SRM objective, and outperforms existing risk-neutral and risk-sensitive DRL models in various settings.

Although being a crucial question for the development of machine learning algorithms, there is still no consensus on how to compare classifiers over multiple data sets with respect to several criteria. Every comparison framework is confronted with (at least) three fundamental challenges: the multiplicity of quality criteria, the multiplicity of data sets and the randomness of the selection of data sets. In this paper, we add a fresh view to the vivid debate by adopting recent developments in decision theory. Based on so-called preference systems, our framework ranks classifiers by a generalized concept of stochastic dominance, which powerfully circumvents the cumbersome, and often even self-contradictory, reliance on aggregates. Moreover, we show that generalized stochastic dominance can be operationalized by solving easy-to-handle linear programs and moreover statistically tested employing an adapted two-sample observation-randomization test. This yields indeed a powerful framework for the statistical comparison of classifiers over multiple data sets with respect to multiple quality criteria simultaneously. We illustrate and investigate our framework in a simulation study and with a set of standard benchmark data sets.

Spaces with locally varying scale of measurement, like multidimensional structures with differently scaled dimensions, are pretty common in statistics and machine learning. Nevertheless, it is still understood as an open question how to exploit the entire information encoded in them properly. We address this problem by considering an order based on (sets of) expectations of random variables mapping into such non-standard spaces. This order contains stochastic dominance and expectation order as extreme cases when no, or respectively perfect, cardinal structure is given. We derive a (regularized) statistical test for our proposed generalized stochastic dominance (GSD) order, operationalize it by linear optimization, and robustify it by imprecise probability models. Our findings are illustrated with data from multidimensional poverty measurement, finance, and medicine.

The quality of consequences in a decision making problem under (severe) uncertainty must often be compared among different targets (goals, objectives) simultaneously. In addition, the evaluations of a consequence's performance under the various targets often differ in their scale of measurement, classically being either purely ordinal or perfectly cardinal. In this paper, we transfer recent developments from abstract decision theory with incomplete preferential and probabilistic information to this multi-target setting and show how -- by exploiting the (potentially) partial cardinal and partial probabilistic information -- more informative orders for comparing decisions can be given than the Pareto order. We discuss some interesting properties of the proposed orders between decision options and show how they can be concretely computed by linear optimization. We conclude the paper by demonstrating our framework in an artificial (but quite real-world) example in the context of comparing algorithms under different performance measures.

In this paper we propose efficient methods for elicitation of complexly structured preferences and utilize these in problems of decision making under (severe) uncertainty. Based on the general framework introduced in Jansen, Schollmeyer and Augustin (2018, Int. J. Approx. Reason), we now design elicitation procedures and algorithms that enable decision makers to reveal their underlying preference system (i.e. two relations, one encoding the ordinal, the other the cardinal part of the preferences) while having to answer as few as possible simple ranking questions. Here, two different approaches are followed. The first approach directly utilizes the collected ranking data for obtaining the ordinal part of the preferences, while their cardinal part is constructed implicitly by measuring meta data on the decision maker's consideration times. In contrast, the second approach explicitly elicits also the cardinal part of the decision maker's preference system, however, only an approximate version of it. This approximation is obtained by additionally collecting labels of preference strength during the elicitation procedure. For both approaches, we give conditions under which they produce the decision maker's true preference system and investigate how their efficiency can be improved. For the latter purpose, besides data-free approaches, we also discuss ways for effectively guiding the elicitation procedure if data from previous elicitation rounds is available. Finally, we demonstrate how the proposed elicitation methods can be utilized in problems of decision under (severe) uncertainty. Precisely, we show that under certain conditions optimal decisions can be found without fully specifying the preference system.