Deployed decisions are often optimized once and retained because updates impose operational, regulatory, or switching costs. As operating conditions change, when should such decisions be re-optimized? We study this question for stochastic optimization when the objective's functional form is known but the decision maker's trade-offs are encoded by an unknown preference parameter. Standard distribution-shift tests are poorly aligned with this goal: they can flag detectable yet decision-irrelevant changes without determining whether the incumbent decision has become materially suboptimal. We propose \texttt{RADAR} (Regret-based Assessment of Decision Adequacy and Risk), a decision-focused framework that uses inverse optimization to infer latent preferences and tests the deployed decision's optimality gap under the current distribution. By targeting regret, \texttt{RADAR} ignores decision-irrelevant shifts while detecting changes that warrant re-optimization. We develop two-sample and sequential changepoint procedures and establish asymptotic guarantees for Type-I error and power. Across synthetic optimization problems, a semi-synthetic capacity allocation task, and police-zone planning, \texttt{RADAR} more reliably distinguishes harmful from harmless shifts than decision-agnostic alternatives.
Shivi Dixit, Rishabh Gupta, Adam Kelloway +2math.OC cs.HC cs.LG
Production planning in the manufacturing industry often relies on the use of optimization models, but defining an appropriate objective function can be a challenge. In practice, planners must balance competing goals, manage uncertainty, and account for qualitative business preferences that are difficult to quantify. As a result, many optimization models fail to match expert behavior, limiting trust and adoption. In this work, we propose a data-driven inverse optimization framework to infer the objective function implicitly captured in expert planners' decisions. We formulate the production planning problem as a mixed-integer linear program, where the unknown objective function is represented as a weighted sum of hypothesized cost terms. A suboptimality-loss-based inverse optimization method is then applied to learn the objective weights from historical production plans. The proposed approach is applied to a real industrial case provided by Dow, where the inferred weights reveal that avoiding inventory shortages and maintaining consistent cycle lengths dominate the planners' decision-making. Time- and product-dependent extensions further improve predictive accuracy and uncover evolving priorities. Expert interviews confirm the practical validity of these insights. Overall, this study shows that inverse optimization can transform tacit human expertise into interpretable models, enabling more accurate and trusted decision-support tools for complex industrial systems.
A data-driven inverse optimization problem (DDIOP) is the problem of estimating the objective-function parameters (weights) that explain observed optimal-solution data, and it arises in many applications, including integer linear programming (ILP). It is known that, by applying gradient-based optimization methods to the suboptimality loss, the inverse optimization of ILPs can be solved exactly within finitely many oracle iterations, and that the required number of iterations is bounded as $T=O(1/γ(\ell_{\mathrm{sub}})^2)$ in terms of a problem-dependent geometric constant $γ(\ell_{\mathrm{sub}})$. However, no means of bounding $γ(\ell_{\mathrm{sub}})$ from below as a function of the problem size has been available, and hence the number of iterations could not be given as an explicit function of the problem size. We therefore give, when the forward problem is an integer linear program (ILP), the number of iterations sufficient for projected subgradient descent applied to the suboptimality loss to achieve exact consistency with the observed data, as a fully explicit function of the number of samples, the dimension of the features, the ranges of the features, and the structure of the constraint coefficient matrix, up to polynomial factors in the basic constants (the diameter of the weight set, the step-size parameter, and the Lipschitz constant of the suboptimality loss).
Hierarchical decision-making frameworks are pivotal for addressing complex control tasks, enabling agents to decompose intricate problems into manageable subgoals. Despite their promise, existing hierarchical policies face critical limitations: (i) reinforcement learning (RL)-based methods struggle to guarantee strict constraint satisfaction, and (ii) optimal control (OC)-based approaches often rely on myopic and computationally prohibitive formulations. To reconcile these trade-offs, hierarchical RL-OC architectures have emerged as a promising paradigm. However, the formulation of the lower-level optimization within these frameworks remains underexplored, often relying on heuristic or myopic objectives. In this work, we propose a principled framework that systematically integrates upper-level goal abstraction with structured lower-level decision making. We adopt an inverse optimization approach to inform the structure of the lower-level problem from expert demonstrations, ensuring that the objective of the lower-level policy remains aligned with the overall long-term task goal. To validate the approach, our framework is evaluated on distinct decision making tasks: network-based resource allocation and continuous collision avoidance. Empirical results demonstrate that our method consistently outperforms strong baselines based on end-to-end RL, learning-augmented optimal control, and existing hierarchical RL approaches in both efficiency and decision quality.