Deciding When to Decide: Testing Operational Suboptimality Under Distributional Shift
TL;DR
This work proposes \texttt{RADAR} (Regret-based Assessment of Decision Adequacy and Risk), a decision-focused framework that uses inverse optimization to infer latent preferences and tests the deployed decision's optimality gap under the current distribution.
Abstract
Deployed decisions are often optimized once and retained because updates impose operational, regulatory, or switching costs. As operating conditions change, when should such decisions be re-optimized? We study this question for stochastic optimization when the objective's functional form is known but the decision maker's trade-offs are encoded by an unknown preference parameter. Standard distribution-shift tests are poorly aligned with this goal: they can flag detectable yet decision-irrelevant changes without determining whether the incumbent decision has become materially suboptimal. We propose \texttt{RADAR} (Regret-based Assessment of Decision Adequacy and Risk), a decision-focused framework that uses inverse optimization to infer latent preferences and tests the deployed decision's optimality gap under the current distribution. By targeting regret, \texttt{RADAR} ignores decision-irrelevant shifts while detecting changes that warrant re-optimization. We develop two-sample and sequential changepoint procedures and establish asymptotic guarantees for Type-I error and power. Across synthetic optimization problems, a semi-synthetic capacity allocation task, and police-zone planning, \texttt{RADAR} more reliably distinguishes harmful from harmless shifts than decision-agnostic alternatives.
