mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Uncertain Decisions Facilitate Better Preference Learning

arXiv 2106.10394 ↗First posted 19 Jun 2021stat.ML cs.AI cs.LGcited by 10

On the map: Offline RL and imitation learning from data → Inverse reinforcement learning

Abstract (arXiv)

Existing observational approaches for learning human preferences, such as inverse reinforcement learning, usually make strong assumptions about the observability of the human's environment. However, in reality, people make many important decisions under uncertainty. To better understand preference learning in these cases, we study the setting of inverse decision theory (IDT), a previously proposed framework where a human is observed making non-sequential binary decisions under uncertainty. In IDT, the human's preferences are conveyed through their loss function, which expresses a tradeoff between different types of mistakes. We give the first statistical analysis of IDT, providing conditions necessary to identify these preferences and characterizing the sample complexity -- the number of decisions that must be observed to learn the tradeoff the human is making to a desired precision. Interestingly, we show that it is actually easier to identify preferences when the decision problem is more uncertain. Furthermore, uncertain decision problems allow us to relax the unrealistic assumption that the human is an optimal decision maker but still identify their exact preferences; we give sample complexities in this suboptimal case as well. Our analysis contradicts the intuition that partial observability should make preference learning more difficult. It also provides a first step towards understanding and improving preference learning methods for uncertain and suboptimal humans.

Key facts. Cited by 10 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Inverse reinforcement learning, one of 13 directions in Offline RL and imitation learning from data. Builds on 13 of its 59 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 19 Jun 2021.

Builds on

13 of 59 references.

References · 13

  1. 2016Inherent Trade-Offs in the Fair Determination of Risk Scorescited by 582
  2. 2017Learning Robust Rewards with Adversarial Inverse Reinforcement Learningcited by 485
  3. 2020Reward-rational (implicit) choice: A unifying formalism for reward learningcited by 119
  4. 2018Batch Active Preference-Based Learning of Reward Functionscited by 87
  5. 2019Asking Easy Questions: A User-Friendly Approach to Active Reward Learningcited by 67
  6. 2020Quantifying Differences in Reward Functionscited by 62
  7. 2019On the Feasibility of Learning, Rather than Assuming, Human Biases for Reward Inferencecited by 49
  8. 2017Occam's razor is insufficient to infer the preferences of irrational agentscited by 44
  9. 2020Fair Performance Metric Elicitationcited by 13
  10. 2021Choice Set Misspecification in Reward Inferencecited by 13
  11. 2018Active Inverse Reward Designcited by 12
  12. 2018Performance Metric Elicitation from Pairwise Classifier Comparisonscited by 7
1 more
  1. 2021Agnostic learning with unknown utilitiescited by 1

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2022: 3; 2023: 3; 2024: 2; 2025: 1; 2026: 1.

10 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2023Provable Benefits of Policy Learning from Human Preferences in Contextual Bandit Problems
  2. 2026Learning Heterogeneous Preferences
  3. 2026A Regret Minimization Framework on Preference Learning in Large Language Models
  4. 2022Models of human preference for learning reward functions
  5. 2019Modeling and Interpreting Real-world Human Risk Decision Making with Inverse Reinforcement Learning
  6. 2026A Lecture Note on Offline RL and IRL, Part II: Foundations of Inverse Reinforcement Learning and Dynamic Discrete Choice Models
  7. 2024Enhancing Preference-based Linear Bandits via Human Response Time
  8. 2024Quantifying the Sensitivity of Inverse Reinforcement Learning to Misspecification