Empirically Understanding the Value of Prediction in Allocation

Institutions increasingly use prediction to allocate scarce resources. From a design perspective, better predictions compete with other investments, such as expanding capacity or improving treatment quality. Here, the big question is not how to solve a specific allocation problem, but rather which problem to solve. In this work, we develop an empirical toolkit to help planners form principled answers to this question and quantify the bottom-line welfare impact of investments in prediction versus other policy levers such as expanding capacity and improving treatment quality. Applying our framework in two real-world case studies on German employment services and poverty targeting in Ethiopia, we illustrate how decision-makers can reliably derive context-specific conclusions about the relative value of prediction in their allocation problem. We make our software toolkit, rvp, and parts of our data available in order to enable future empirical work in this area.

In Defense of Defensive Forecasting

This tutorial provides a survey of algorithms for Defensive Forecasting, where predictions are derived not by prognostication but by correcting past mistakes. Pioneered by Vovk, Defensive Forecasting frames the goal of prediction as a sequential game, and derives predictions to minimize metrics no matter what outcomes occur. We present an elementary introduction to this general theory and derive simple, near-optimal algorithms for online learning, calibration, prediction with expert advice, and online conformal prediction.

The Value of Prediction in Identifying the Worst-Off

Machine learning is increasingly used in government programs to identify and support the most vulnerable individuals, prioritizing assistance for those at greatest risk over optimizing aggregate outcomes. This paper examines the welfare impacts of prediction in equity-driven contexts, and how they compare to other policy levers, such as expanding bureaucratic capacity. Through mathematical models and a real-world case study on long-term unemployment amongst German residents, we develop a comprehensive understanding of the relative effectiveness of prediction in surfacing the worst-off. Our findings provide clear analytical frameworks and practical, data-driven tools that empower policymakers to make principled decisions when designing these systems.

The Relative Value of Prediction in Algorithmic Decision Making

Algorithmic predictions are increasingly used to inform the allocations of goods and interventions in the public sphere. In these domains, predictions serve as a means to an end. They provide stakeholders with insights into likelihood of future events as a means to improve decision making quality, and enhance social welfare. However, if maximizing welfare is the ultimate goal, prediction is only a small piece of the puzzle. There are various other policy levers a social planner might pursue in order to improve bottom-line outcomes, such as expanding access to available goods, or increasing the effect sizes of interventions. Given this broad range of design decisions, a basic question to ask is: What is the relative value of prediction in algorithmic decision making? How do the improvements in welfare arising from better predictions compare to those of other policy levers? The goal of our work is to initiate the formal study of these questions. Our main results are theoretical in nature. We identify simple, sharp conditions determining the relative value of prediction vis-\`a-vis expanding access, within several statistical models that are popular amongst quantitative social scientists. Furthermore, we illustrate how these theoretical insights may be used to guide the design of algorithmic decision making systems in practice.