Scenario theory for multi-criteria data-driven decision making

The scenario approach is an established data-driven design framework that comes equipped with a powerful theory linking design complexity to generalization properties. In this approach, data are simultaneously used both for design and for certifying the design's reliability, without resorting to a separate test dataset. This paper takes a step further by guaranteeing additional properties, useful in post-design usage but not considered during the design phase. To this end, we introduce a two-level framework of appropriateness: baseline appropriateness, which guides the design process, and post-design appropriateness, which serves as a criterion for a posteriori evaluation. We provide distribution-free upper bounds on the risk of failing to meet the post-design appropriateness; these bounds are computable without using any additional test data. Under additional assumptions, lower bounds are also derived. As part of an effort to demonstrate the usefulness of the proposed methodology, the paper presents two practical examples in H2 and pole-placement problems. Moreover, a method is provided to infer comprehensive distributional knowledge of relevant performance indexes from the available dataset.

Decision-making in real applications is often affected by vagueness, incomplete information, heterogeneous data, and conflicting expert opinions. This survey reviews uncertainty-aware multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) and organizes the field into a concise, task-oriented taxonomy. We summarize problem-level settings (discrete, group/consensus, dynamic, multi-stage, multi-level, multiagent, and multi-scenario), weight elicitation (subjective and objective schemes under fuzzy/linguistic inputs), and inter-criteria structure and causality modelling. For solution procedures, we contrast compensatory scoring methods, distance-to-reference and compromise approaches, and non-compensatory outranking frameworks for ranking or sorting. We also outline rule/evidence-based and sequential decision models that produce interpretable rules or policies. The survey highlights typical inputs, core computational steps, and primary outputs, and provides guidance on choosing methods according to robustness, interpretability, and data availability. It concludes with open directions on explainable uncertainty integration, stability, and scalability in large-scale and dynamic decision environments.

Robust optimization (RO) provides a principled framework for decision-making under uncertainty, but its performance critically depends on the choice of the uncertainty set. While large sets ensure reliability, they often lead to overly conservative decisions, whereas small sets risk excluding the true outcome. Recent data-driven approaches, particularly conformal prediction, offer finite-sample validity guarantees but remain largely task-agnostic, ignoring the downstream decision structure. In this paper, we propose a decision-aware conformal framework that learns uncertainty sets tailored to robust optimization objectives. Our approach parameterizes a flexible family of polyhedral sets via data-driven hyperplanes and learns their geometry by directly minimizing the induced robust loss, while preserving statistical validity through conformal calibration. To correct for data-dependent selection, we incorporate a re-calibration step on an independent dataset to restore coverage. The resulting sets capture directional and anisotropic uncertainty aligned with the decision objective while remaining computationally tractable. We provide finite-sample coverage guarantees and bounds on the sub-optimality gap to an oracle decision. This work bridges the gap between statistical validity and decision optimality, providing a principled framework for data-driven robust optimization.