Konstantinos Ziliaskopoulos

arXiv2026

Decision-Value Attribution in Predict-then-Optimize Systems

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.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

Decision-Focused Federated Learning Under Heterogeneous Objectives and Constraints

We consider Decision-Focused Federated Learning (DFFL), a predict-then-optimize setting in which multiple clients collaboratively train predictive models for downstream linear optimization problems without exchanging raw data. Besides the data heterogeneity typical of standard federated learning, clients may also have different objective functions and feasible regions. Building on the SPO+ surrogate loss, we derive heterogeneity bounds that separate objective shift, measured through cost-vector distances, from feasible-set shift, measured through support-function and shape-distance terms. We show that, for general compact feasible sets, small objective perturbations can still induce nonvanishing decision-focused loss discrepancies, while strongly convex feasible regions yield sharper stability-based bounds. We then lift these pointwise bounds to a local-versus-federated excess-risk comparison, showing that federation is beneficial when the statistical advantage of pooling exceeds a client-specific heterogeneity penalty. Computational experiments on polyhedral and strongly convex problems confirm that federation is substantially more robust under strongly convex feasible regions. Finally, we evaluate a simple validation-based interpolation between local and federated DFFL models. This interpolation mitigates the theoretical tradeoff and reduces aggregate regret and worst-client harm in both synthetic experiments and a PJM energy-pricing case study.

math.OC↗