Set-Valued Policy Learning

Policy learning aims to determine who should be treated based on individual characteristics. In high-stakes settings such as medicine and public policy where safety is a central concern, improving the average outcomes alone may not be sufficient: decision makers may also seek to protect individuals from harm, in line with the Hippocratic principle of ``do no harm.'' In this paper, we propose \textit{conformal policy learning} (CPL), a policy learning procedure with a new distribution-free safety guarantee that controls the probability of assigning treatment to an individual who would be harmed relative to control. CPL views each treatment decision as testing a hypothesis of counterfactual harm and assigns treatment by thresholding conformal p-values. These p-values use observable proxies and selective calibration to address the challenge that the potential outcomes under comparison are never simultaneously observed. For randomized experiments, under standard exchangeability conditions, CPL provides finite-sample safety guarantee at a user-specified level, without imposing any outcome modeling assumptions. Moreover, when the outcome model is consistently estimated, CPL achieves asymptotically optimal welfare subject to the safety constraint. In observational studies, CPL with learn-then-balance weights achieves doubly robust safety guarantees. We evaluate CPL through extensive simulations and apply it to an empirical study of AI-powered interventions designed to reduce conspiracy beliefs.

Predictions are increasingly used to guide high-stakes decisions, from treatment selection to policy making. To ensure reliability with imperfect predictions, uncertainty quantification methods such as conformal prediction build prediction sets with coverage guarantees. However, statistical validity alone does not immediately determine the decisions to take, nor the optimality thereof. This gap is especially delicate in counterfactual settings where the outcome that materializes depends on the action taken, so uncertainty cannot be specified independently of the decision rule. We develop a decision-theoretic framework for uncertainty-informed counterfactual decisions. We identify a novel notion of \emph{policy-coupled coverage} -- namely, coverage of the realized outcome under the action induced by the prediction sets themselves -- as the optimal and lossless interface between uncertainty and action. It plays three roles. First, it justifies acting via a natural max-min rule as minimax-optimal under distributional ambiguity. Second, optimizing prediction sets under policy-coupled coverage is equivalent both to a stronger universal-coverage formulation and to the direct risk-averse optimization over policies and utility certificates; this equivalence yields the explicit form of the population-optimal prediction sets. Third, it admits a two-stage procedure, Policy-Coupled Risk-Averse Conformal Prediction (PC-RACP), that approximates these optimal sets with rigorous finite-sample coverage. Simulations and a real email-marketing experiment confirm that PC-RACP delivers higher utility than existing approaches while maintaining valid coverage, and that ignoring the counterfactual structure of the decision problem is suboptimal for both validity and utility.

Policy learning methods are increasingly used to inform treatment allocation under budget constraints. Most proposed methods assume complete treatment data, yet applications frequently suffer from missingness that can bias estimates and lead to suboptimal policies. We address this gap by extending efficient estimators for average treatment effect (ATE) estimation to policy value and conditional average treatment effect (CATE) estimation under missing at random (MAR) and missing completely conditionally at random (MCCAR) treatment data. Through asymptotic efficiency analysis, we prove that the MAR estimator, which leverages partially-observed units, is both valid and more efficient than the MCCAR estimator when MCCAR assumptions hold. This result provides formal justification for preferring MAR-based estimation in policy learning under both missing data settings. Our comprehensive experiments using synthetic and semi-synthetic datasets confirm that correctly specifying the missingness mechanism is crucial: misspecified estimators remain biased regardless of sample size, while our estimators achieve near-oracle performance when assumptions are satisfied. Our work provides practitioners with theoretically grounded, empirically validated tools for robust policy learning in the presence of missing treatment data.