让决策系统先尝试修复再拒绝,减少误判。
Repair Before Veto: Repair-Augmented Constraint Learning for Contextual Decisions

- 将修复操作纳入决策逻辑,优先尝试修复而非直接拒绝。
- 在真实数据上将误拒率从26.3%降至0.25%,显著提升准确性。
- 适合需要高可靠性、可解释修复建议的金融/医疗决策场景。
硬约束通常被当作终局否决:一旦候选违反要求,系统即刻拒绝,修复交由外部处理。这忽略了实际部署中已知有限修复选项的常见情形,如添加票务选项、更改配置或请求服务升级。现有约束学习、软松弛和可追溯方法虽能应对邻近问题,但未学习是否应在否决前进行修复。本文提出修复增强型约束学习(RACL),将已知修复算子融入分类器语义。当某候选经合理修复后既可行又足够优时,系统接受;否则返回结构化拒绝理由及修复方案。该修复优先于否决的范式严格推广了无修复的HASSLE语义,揭示了终端否决规则下不可消除的误拒间隙,区分了二值标签不可识别性与决策规则可学习性,并给出了观测可行性共享权重设置下的容量与校准界。在受控和DB1B衍生基准测试中,RACL成功恢复预期信用与修复结构。在最困难的原始数据层级,经验证选择的RACL将误拒率降至10/4039(FVR 0.0025),相较最强修复搜索黑盒基线的1064/4039大幅优化,同时显式呈现了误拒率与修复率之间的权衡。
原文摘要 · Abstract (English)
Hard constraints are usually treated as terminal vetoes: once a candidate violates a requirement, the learned rule rejects it and any repair is handled outside the decision semantics. This misses a common deployed regime in which the system already knows a finite menu of modifications, such as adding a ticket option, changing a configuration, or requesting an available service upgrade. Existing constraint-learning, soft-relaxation, and recourse methods address nearby problems, but they do not learn whether an option should be repaired before being vetoed. We introduce Repair-Augmented Constraint Learning (RACL), a contextual decision framework that lifts known repair operators into the classifier semantics. A candidate is accepted when an affordable repair makes it feasible and preferred enough; otherwise the system returns a structured rejection credit and, when applicable, a repair plan. This repair-before-veto view strictly generalizes no-repair HASSLE-style semantics, reveals an irreducible false-veto gap for terminal-veto rules, separates binary-label non-identifiability from decision-rule learnability, and gives capacity and calibration bounds for the observed-feasibility shared-weight setting. Across controlled and DB1B-derived benchmarks, RACL recovers the intended credit and repair structure. On the hardest raw-data-derived tier, validation-selected RACL reduces false vetoes to 10/4039 (FVR 0.0025), versus about 1064/4039 for the strongest repair-search black-box baseline, while making the FVR/EDR trade-off explicit.
Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品;中文卡片由大模型生成,请以原文为准。