Skip to content
Off-topic for aiqbench

Off-topic for aiqbench

This story was gathered from a source we follow but falls outside AI and quantum coverage, so there is no aiqbench take for it.

Waiting Buys Exactly Two Moments: Endogenous Identification in Prediction-Driven Allocation

arXiv2 min read

arXiv:2610.23830v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: A planner with a fixed budget of preventive help must decide whom to help and when. Waiting reveals risk but removes intervention opportunities as higher-risk individuals leave first. We characterize this tradeoff under repeated noisy signals and risk-dependent attrition: in the canonical model, a length-$\tau$ observation prefix identifies exactly the latent risk moments $m_j=\mathbb E[p^j]$ for $j=0,\ldots,2\tau-1$, buying two new moments per additional period. These identify average next-period attrition among survivors but need not identify allocation welfare or attrition among those prioritized for treatment. Our observationally equivalent constructions establish unavoidable timing regret at any sample size for a fixed observation length, while exact certificates determine whether all compatible populations share a unique optimal date. Matched experiments separate the effects of estimation, bootstrap averaging, and regret weighting. Longer observation often resolves timing ambiguity, but the optimal date may already have passed. In our experiments, bootstrap averaging and early stopping improve decisions, while regret weighting adds no improvement in pooled mean squared regret: better statistical fit need not yield better allocation welfare. The code and artifacts are available at https://github.com/KurbanIntelligenceLab/waiting-buys-two-moments.

Abstract:A planner with a fixed budget of preventive help must decide whom to help and when. Waiting reveals risk but removes intervention opportunities as higher-risk individuals leave first. We characterize this tradeoff under repeated noisy signals and risk-dependent attrition: in the canonical model, a length-$\tau$ observation prefix identifies exactly the latent risk moments $m_j=\mathbb E[p^j]$ for $j=0,\ldots,2\tau-1$, buying two new moments per additional period. These identify average next-period attrition among survivors but need not identify allocation welfare or attrition among those prioritized for treatment. Our observationally equivalent constructions establish unavoidable timing regret at any sample size for a fixed observation length, while exact certificates determine whether all compatible populations share a unique optimal date. Matched experiments separate the effects of estimation, bootstrap averaging, and regret weighting. Longer observation often resolves timing ambiguity, but the optimal date may already have passed. In our experiments, bootstrap averaging and early stopping improve decisions, while regret weighting adds no improvement in pooled mean squared regret: better statistical fit need not yield better allocation welfare. The code and artifacts are available at this https URL.

Machine Learning (cs.LG)

arXiv:2610.23830 [cs.LG]

(or arXiv:2610.23830v1 [cs.LG] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.23830 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Full text under the publisher's open licence · 274 words

Related coverage