Papers › Ordered Preference Elicitation Strategies for Supporting Multi-Objective Decision Making

Ordered Preference Elicitation Strategies for Supporting Multi-Objective Decision Making

21 Feb 2018arXiv:1802.07606archive 2025-07-28

Luisa M. Zintgraf, Diederik M. Roijers, Sjoerd Linders, Catholijn M. Jonker, Ann Nowé

In multi-objective decision planning and learning, much attention is paid to producing optimal solution sets that contain an optimal policy for every possible user preference profile. We argue that the step that follows, i.e, determining which policy to execute by maximising the user's intrinsic utility function over this (possibly infinite) set, is under-studied. This paper aims to fill this gap. We build on previous work on Gaussian processes and pairwise comparisons for preference modelling, extend it to the multi-objective decision support scenario, and propose new ordered preference elicitation strategies based on ranking and clustering. Our main contribution is an in-depth evaluation of these strategies using computer and human-based experiments. We show that our proposed elicitation strategies outperform the currently used pairwise methods, and found that users prefer ranking most. Our experiments further show that utilising monotonicity information in GPs by using a linear prior mean at the start and virtual comparisons to the nadir and ideal points, increases performance. We demonstrate our decision support framework in a real-world study on traffic regulation, conducted with the city of Amsterdam.

Code

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

12 samples harvested; 0 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 12 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.

Licence: 0 of the 12 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.

Harvested from lmzintgraf/gp_pref_elicit. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.

Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.

Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.

Tasks

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections