The Confidence Gate Theorem: When Should Ranked Decision Systems Abstain?

High-stakes decision systems in credit scoring, fraud detection, healthcare, and industrial safety require reliable uncertainty quantification under severe class imbalance and asymmetric error costs. Standard marginal conformal prediction (CP) provides valid overall coverage guarantees; however, we show that it severely under-covers rare, costly minority classes, with minority-class coverage dropping to as low as 0.5% on certain datasets. To characterize and address this limitation, we conduct a comprehensive benchmark comparing marginal CP, class-conditional (Mondrian) CP, and cost-controlled abstention mechanisms across 15 real-world imbalanced tabular datasets, 7 classification models, 3 probability calibration techniques, and 10 random seeds, resulting in 3,150 experimental runs. Our results show that Mondrian CP restores valid minority-class coverage, achieving an average minority-coverage improvement of 61.7 percentage points over marginal CP (p < 1e-80). Furthermore, combining Mondrian CP with cost-controlled abstention significantly reduces expected decision cost compared with standard decision boundaries, confidence-based rejectors, and risk-controlled rejectors under realistic human review budgets. We further quantify dataset-specific break-even thresholds at which deferring ambiguous instances to human experts becomes cost-effective. These findings provide practical guidance for deploying distribution-free, cost-aware uncertainty quantification in high-stakes decision support systems.

Counterfactual explanations are widely used to provide algorithmic recourse in high-stakes decision-making systems. Most existing methods seek the smallest change to an input that flips a model's decision. However, decision-makers often rely not only on predicted labels but also on confidence thresholds and risk margins. Counterfactuals that barely cross a decision boundary can be fragile and unstable under noise or model variation. In this paper, we propose Target-confidence Recourse Using tSeTlin machines (TRUST), a framework in which users explicitly specify the desired prediction confidence for recourse. Rather than generating counterfactuals and evaluating confidence afterward, TRUST directly searches for minimal changes that satisfy a user-defined confidence target, enabling comparison of recourse options in terms of cost, confidence, and robustness. We instantiate TRUST using a Probabilistic Tsetlin Machine (PTM) combined with Bayesian optimization. The probabilistic clause-based structure of PTM links prediction confidence to the stability of decision rules. We show that counterfactuals satisfying the same rules can still differ substantially in reliability depending on how securely they satisfy those rules, revealing whether decisions are supported by robust or fragile clause activations. Experiments on synthetic and real-world datasets demonstrate that target-confidence counterfactuals produce more robust and interpretable recourse than conventional boundary-based approaches. Across multiple benchmarks, TRUST achieves perfect robustness while maintaining low recourse cost, including an L2 distance of 0.10 on the Haberman dataset at 0.92 confidence. By explicitly controlling confidence and exposing rule-level stability, TRUST provides actionable recourse for high-stakes decision support.

LLM workflows and agents rely on a set of binary decisions like allow/block an input, or discard/retain a retrieved document. When human deferral is unavailable, uncertain cases must still receive an action. We study System One decision scores in this setting by defaulting to a conservative fallback when uncertain, and controlling the false omission risk within the subset of inputs assigned the utility-maximizing action. Across six datasets covering moderation, safety, and reranking, we compare general System One models with task baselines and a local open-weights fine-tuned System One model. We show that naive baselines for threshold selection exceed the target risk in roughly half of settings with defined test risk, compared with 7.8% for Learn Then Test (LTT), which leverages finite-sample statistical guarantees. Our results show why relying on a probability-like interface is insufficient for deployment decisions and how risk-budgeted selection trades useful action against observed error.