mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Decision-Value Attribution in Predict-then-Optimize Systems

arXiv 2606.29878 ↗First posted 29 Jun 2026cs.LG math.OC stat.MLcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Predictive models are increasingly embedded in operational decision-making, yet standard explanation methods typically explain forecasts rather than the decisions those forecasts induce. This distinction is important in predict-then-optimize systems: large forecast changes may leave the optimizer's action unchanged, while small changes can alter the selected decision and its realized value. We propose Decision Value Attribution (DVA), a Shapley-based framework for attributing the value of a fixed prediction--optimization pipeline. The framework defines cooperative games whose payoff is the downstream decision value, allowing the players to be information sources, optimization or design parameters, or both. We present three variants: InfoDVA attributes value to features, DesignDVA attributes value to operational configurations, and Decision-Value Interactions (DVI) quantifies how information and design jointly create value. We further distinguish post-DVA, which evaluates decisions using realized outcomes, from pre-DVA, which evaluates decisions under the model's full prediction. This separation turns attribution into a decision-level diagnostic of whether the model's operational beliefs align with realized performance. The resulting attributions are expressed in the units of the operational objective and decompose the gain or loss relative to a baseline. Case studies in electricity storage arbitrage and emergency medical service coverage show that predictive explanations can be poor proxies for operational value, that DVA can guide targeted information-control interventions, and that optimization configurations determine when predictive information is decision-relevant.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 21 of its 55 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 29 Jun 2026.

Builds on

21 of 55 references.

References · 21

  1. 2017A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictionscited by 6,555
  2. 2016XGBoost: A Scalable Tree Boosting Systemcited by 5,166
  3. 2018RISE: Randomized Input Sampling for Explanation of Black-box Modelscited by 838
  4. 2019Data Shapley: Equitable Valuation of Data for Machine Learningcited by 629
  5. 2018All Models are Wrong, but Many are Useful: Learning a Variable's Importance by Studying an Entire Class of Prediction Models Simultaneouslycited by 373
  6. 2019On the (In)fidelity and Sensitivity for Explanationscited by 310
  7. 2023When Do Neural Nets Outperform Boosted Trees on Tabular Data?cited by 223
  8. 2020Explaining by Removing: A Unified Framework for Model Explanationcited by 218
  9. 2019Explaining individual predictions when features are dependent: More accurate approximations to Shapley valuescited by 208
  10. 2014From Predictive to Prescriptive Analyticscited by 143
  11. 2019The Shapley Taylor Interaction Indexcited by 143
  12. 2023Decision-Focused Learning: Foundations, State of the Art, Benchmark and Future Opportunitiescited by 130
9 more
  1. 2021Sampling Permutations for Shapley Value Estimationcited by 102
  2. 2023A Survey of Contextual Optimization Methods for Decision Making under Uncertaintycited by 82
  3. 2022Faith-Shap: The Faithful Shapley Interaction Indexcited by 69
  4. 2021Decision-Focused Learning: Through the Lens of Learning to Rankcited by 62
  5. 2022A Framework for Inherently Interpretable Optimization Modelscited by 8
  6. 2018Ambulance Emergency Response Optimization in Developing Countriescited by 7
  7. 2014Optimal Hour-Ahead Bidding in the Real-Time Electricity Market with Battery Storage using Approximate Dynamic Programmingcited by 6
  8. 2024Counterfactual Explanations for Linear Optimizationcited by 3
  9. 2024Towards Robust Interpretable Surrogates for Optimizationcited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.