Contextual Decision Making: Predictive or Generative

arXiv:2610.32584v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Contextual decision making uses observed covariates to guide decisions under uncertainty. Two natural approaches are predict-then-optimize (PtO), which learns the conditional expected objective, and generate-then-optimize (GtO), which learns conditional uncertainty and optimizes using generated scenarios. We study when each approach is preferable by examining how the choice of learning target affects statistical accuracy and optimization tractability. Although PtO learns a narrower target, our regret bounds show how differences in smoothness can offset GtO's additional dimensional burden. Exploiting smoothness also raises an optimization tradeoff: within the class of nonnegative-weight PtO methods studied, a lower bound limits the gains from additional smoothness, while more flexible methods may introduce signed weights and lose the guarantee of preserving convexity. GtO preserves scenario-wise convexity, but requires learning a richer object and generating scenarios for optimization. Synthetic experiments and a real case study illustrate how these tradeoffs vary with data availability and problem structure. Together with the scope for reusing a model across tasks, our findings provide practical guidance for choosing between the approaches without identifying a universal winner.

Abstract:Contextual decision making uses observed covariates to guide decisions under uncertainty. Two natural approaches are predict-then-optimize (PtO), which learns the conditional expected objective, and generate-then-optimize (GtO), which learns conditional uncertainty and optimizes using generated scenarios. We study when each approach is preferable by examining how the choice of learning target affects statistical accuracy and optimization tractability. Although PtO learns a narrower target, our regret bounds show how differences in smoothness can offset GtO's additional dimensional burden. Exploiting smoothness also raises an optimization tradeoff: within the class of nonnegative-weight PtO methods studied, a lower bound limits the gains from additional smoothness, while more flexible methods may introduce signed weights and lose the guarantee of preserving convexity. GtO preserves scenario-wise convexity, but requires learning a richer object and generating scenarios for optimization. Synthetic experiments and a real case study illustrate how these tradeoffs vary with data availability and problem structure. Together with the scope for reusing a model across tasks, our findings provide practical guidance for choosing between the approaches without identifying a universal winner.

Machine Learning (cs.LG); Optimization and Control (math.OC); Machine Learning (stat.ML)

arXiv:2610.32584 [cs.LG]

(or arXiv:2610.32584v1 [cs.LG] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.32584 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.

analiza aiqbench

Contextual Decision Making: Predictive or Generative

Subiecte conexe