YUKTI: From Natural-Language Situations to Robust, Verifiable Decisions An Uncertainty-Typed Proposition IR, Assumption-Robust Pareto Frontiers, and a Regret Certificate

Suyash Mishra

cs.AIJun 22, 2026

YUKTI: From Natural-Language Situations to Robust, Verifiable Decisions An Uncertainty-Typed Proposition IR, Assumption-Robust Pareto Frontiers, and a Regret Certificate

Authors: Suyash Mishra

Organizations: AI Researcher

Abstract

Language models turn a worded situation into a numeric plan, and the dominant pipelines (NL4Opt, OptiMUS, ORLM, OR-LLM-Agent) commit to a single objective and point-valued coefficients, then solve once. For decisions that allocate real budget, effort, or clinical attention, that confidence is the failure mode: every objectified number is an assumption, and a plan optimal only if the guesses are exactly right is fragile -- mimicry of computation. YUKTI changes the target of autoformulation. Its representation is a typed-proposition graph whose relationships carry shape priors, coefficient uncertainty, and provenance. YUKTI routes each stage to an exact, nonlinear, or evolutionary solver; couples stages by a distributional Pareto hand-off; and introduces Assumption-Robust Pareto Frontiers (ARPF), resampling assumptions (including structural epsilon-contamination) to score how often each action survives (rho). We prove a bound making rho an exact factor of decision regret, add auditable traceability, and synthesize a benchmark-faithful data foundation when none exists (SRJANA). We validate three ways: under controlled misspecification the robust compromise cuts mean and tail regret by over 90% versus a naive point plan; on a regulated commercial decision we optimize inside a lawful action space and price the downside in euros; and on a real public dataset of 41,188 decisions an out-of-sample backtest beats the logged status quo by 34% and a naive point rule by 4% while reducing the optimizer's curse. The solvers are standard; we claim no benchmark-SOTA win. A head-to-head shows an LLM given the correct numbers, and single-objective optimization, both incur about 47x the held-out regret of YUKTI -- an LLM is a formulator, not a solver. Under long-range causal coupling, the forward hand-off becomes unsound, locating where it must become a backward-induction causal policy.

Explore similar work

Jun 28, 2026cs.AI

Budgeted Act-or-Defer Multi-Agent LLM Deliberation with Local Reliability Bounds

Multi-agent deliberation among LLMs can improve reasoning, but deployment requires deciding when the current answer is reliable enough to act on and when it should be escalated to human review. We formulate this as budgeted act-or-defer decision making. At each round, the system maps the debate prefix to a low-dimensional state, computes a

k

-nearest-neighbor lower confidence bound on state-conditional correctness using calibration data, and acts only when the bound exceeds a user-specified reliability threshold. The certificate controls wrong actions through the decomposition

β= δ+ α+ \varepsilon_{\mathrm{act}}

, separating calibration failure, residual action risk, and representation gap. The guarantee is conditional, not distribution-free: it relies on a valid local bias envelope and an action-region representation-gap bound, and each assumption is paired with falsification-style diagnostics. Because the same absolute wrong-action budget has different meanings across tasks of different difficulty, we set budgets relative to each task's final-round error using training data only, and evaluate safety by normalized budget usage

\mathrm{WA}/β

. On six benchmarks against nine baselines, the method uses 9--12% of the pre-declared budget on activated datasets, reaching up to 84% automation and 96% acted-on accuracy; on stress-test datasets, it defers rather than forcing unreliable automation. Rather than relying on per-task post-hoc threshold search, the method prospectively converts a user-declared wrong-action budget into an auditable act-or-defer operating point before deployment, under explicitly stated assumptions.

Mengdie Flora Wang, Haochen Xie, Guanghui Wang +2

Large Language Model Decision-Making Agent Decisions Token Budgets Falsehood

Ask PDF

May 26, 2026cs.CL

Uncertainty-Aware Budget Allocation for Adaptive Test-Time Reasoning

Sampling multiple responses improves language model reasoning, but uniform compute allocation is inefficient: easy questions are over-sampled while hard questions remain under-explored. We propose Uncertainty-Aware Budget Allocation (UAB), a concave integer optimization framework that reallocates a fixed sampling budget based on per-question uncertainty estimated at no additional inference cost. In Phase 1, every question receives one generation; its average negative log-likelihood (ANLL), extracted directly from output log-probabilities, serves as a difficulty signal while the generation contributes to the final vote. In Phase 2, the remaining budget is allocated by a marginal-greedy algorithm that solves a concave coverage-maximization surrogate exactly: uncertain questions receive more sampling budget while confident questions receive fewer additional samples. Evaluated on six open-weight and black-box models spanning 1.5B to 27B parameters and five reasoning benchmarks covering math, logic, and preference tasks, UAB outperforms baselines by up to +3% in average accuracy and up to +5% on individual benchmarks, with the largest gains in low-resource settings, requiring no auxiliary model or additional LLM call. Code is publicly available at https://github.com/manhitv/UAB.

Manh Nguyen, Sunil Gupta, Hung Le

Large Language Model Reasoning Token Budgets Reducible Uncertainty Inference Cost

Ask PDF

Sep 23, 2026cs.LG

Forecast Workflow Bench: Evaluating Language-Model Decisions with Budgeted Forecast Tools

Time-series foundation models (TSFMs) provide forecasts for operational decisions, but accuracy alone does not determine their value. Evaluating agents that use these models requires measuring decision quality and forecast cost. FWBench evaluates this capability on 1,251 electricity and cycle-hire cases using fixed forecast tools and simulated capacity contracts. Agents select models, histories and horizons, then submit capacities to minimize a stated loss-cost objective. We evaluated two hosted and eight local configurations, including small language models, and tested local models with and without TSFMs. GPT-6 Astra bought inexpensive short-horizon forecasts selectively, using 2.5% of the budget, and outperformed fixed policies when the saved decisions were scored with three loss-cost weightings. FWBench enables reproducible evaluation of how language models select and use time-series forecasts to make decisions under cost constraints.

Shunya Nagashima

Topic pending

Ask PDF