Life sciences · Preprint
arXiv · October 23, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Preprint.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
Contextual decision making uses observed covariates to guide decisions under uncertainty. Two natural approaches are predict-then-optimize (PtO), which learns the conditional expected objective, and generate-then-optimize (GtO), which learns conditional uncertainty and optimizes using generated scenarios. We study when each approach is preferable by examining how the choice of learning target affects statistical accuracy and optimization tractability. Although PtO learns a narrower target, our regret bounds show how differences in smoothness can offset GtO's additional dimensional burden. Exploiting smoothness also raises an optimization tradeoff: within the class of nonnegative-weight PtO methods studied, a lower bound limits the gains from additional smoothness, while more flexible methods may introduce signed weights and lose the guarantee of preserving convexity. GtO preserves scenario-wise convexity, but requires learning a richer object and generating scenarios for optimization. Synthetic experiments and a real case study illustrate how these tradeoffs vary with data availability and problem structure. Together with the scope for reusing a model across tasks, our findings provide practical guidance for choosing between the approaches without identifying a universal winner.