Conformal Risk-Averse Decision Making with Optimized Certainty Equivalent Risk Control

Reliable decision making pipelines powered by machine learning models require uncertainty quantification (UQ) methods that come with explicit safety guarantees. Conformal prediction provides such UQ by wrapping ML predictions into prediction sets, and recent work by Kiyani et al. (2025b) established that these sets can be translated into optimal risk-averse decision policies -- yet only inheriting marginal safety guarantees. We generalize and strengthen their results by (i) introducing action-conditional conformal prediction, which yields safety guarantees conditioned explicitly on each action taken by the decision maker, (ii) showing that action-conditional prediction sets serve as a proxy for the feasible decision space for risk-averse decision makers aiming to optimize action-conditional value-at-risk, and (iii) proposing a principled finite-sample algorithm based on pinball-loss minimization, connecting the framework of Gibbs et al. (2025) to action-conditional guarantees. Experiments on two real-world datasets confirm that our approach significantly improves action-conditional performance over conformal baselines.

In many machine learning applications, it is necessary to guard against worst-case scenarios and predictions that could result in substantial losses. In principle, this can be achieved by training risk-averse predictive models that minimize loss functions such as conditional value-at-risk (CVaR), rather than relying on models that perform well on average. In practice, however, the effectiveness of this approach to risk aversion is undermined by the learner's uncertainty regarding the true loss distribution and, consequently, the true CVaR. To achieve reliable risk-aversion, we propose a method in which this (epistemic) uncertainty is represented in terms of credal sets, i.e., sets of probability distributions. More specifically, we develop an efficient yet reliable learner that produces predictions in the form of credal sets and combine it with a novel decision rule that maps each credal set to a single predictive distribution for CVaR minimization. Across classification, under distribution shift, and in reinforcement learning, our approach reliably avoids catastrophic decisions, while sacrificing little in expected performance.

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 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.