Autonomous driving involves multiple, often conflicting objectives such as safety, efficiency, and comfort. In reinforcement learning (RL), these objectives are typically combined through weighted summation, which collapses their relative priorities and often yields policies that violate safety-critical constraints. To overcome this limitation, we introduce the Preordered Multi-Objective MDP (Pr-MOMDP), which augments standard MOMDPs with a preorder over reward components. This structure enables reasoning about actions with respect to a hierarchy of objectives rather than a scalar signal. To make this structure actionable, we extend distributional RL with a novel pairwise comparison metric, Quantile Dominance (QD), that evaluates action return distributions without reducing them into a single statistic. Building on QD, we propose an algorithm for extracting optimal subsets, the subset of actions that remain non-dominated under each objective, which allows precedence information to shape both decision-making and training targets. Our framework is instantiated with Implicit Quantile Networks (IQN), establishing a concrete implementation while preserving compatibility with a broad class of distributional RL methods. Experiments in Carla show improved success rates, fewer collisions and off-road events, and deliver statistically more robust policies than IQN and ensemble-IQN baselines. By ensuring policies respect rewards preorder, our work advances safer, more reliable autonomous driving systems.
Figures & tables
Fig. 1 : Examples of lexicographic and partial order rewards
Fig. 2 : Comparison of two classical architectures (a, b) with our Pr-IQN approach (c), shown during inference given observations ot . Information bottlenecks are highlighted in red and novel components for full information utilization in green . Compared to classical approaches, Pr-IQN leverages distributions Zrn to select actions that respect a given preorder.
Fig. 3 : The reward hierarchy with Safety as the highest priority, followed by Risk, Lane Keeping, Progress, and Comfort. This ordering guides the agent’s decision-making to emphasize safety while balancing other objectives.
Fig. 4 : Probability of improvement [ 41 ] , quantifying the likelihood that an algorithm X (the left column) outperforms algorithm Y (the right column).
Fig. 5 : Interquartile mean (IQM) and optimality gap [ 41 ] , quantifying the statistical stability of a policy.
Policy
Reward components
Safety ↑
Δ (%)
Risk ↑
Δ (%)
Lane keeping ↑
Δ (%)
Traffic Density 0.5
IQN
−0.007±0.003
–
−0.086±0.016
–
−0.120±0.013
–
Ensemble
−0.008±0.006
−9.4
−0.104±0.026
−20.8
−0.124±0.065
−3.0
Pr-IQN∗
−0.004±0.002
+42.0
−0.051±0.011
+40.9
−0.076±0.013
+36.8
Traffic Density 0.75
TABLE I : Rewards for multiple objectives of different policies across traffic densities. Δ(%) denotes the relative reward gain expressed as a percentage with respect to IQN. Higher values indicate better alignment of the policy with the defined objectives.
Policy
Comparison Metric
Training Preorder
Threshold ϵ
Partial Order
Evaluation metrics
CR ↓
OR ↓
SR ↑
RP ↑
Traffic Density 0.5
IQN
–
–
–
–
0.248±0.082
0.013±0.015
0.737±0.084
0.764±0.053
Ensemble
–
–
–
–
0.272±0.145
0.023±0.022
0.704±0.160
0.782±0.065
MA-IQN
–
–
–
–
0.403±0.039
0.002±0.004
0.594±0.042
0.696±0.027
Pr-IQN
MV
✓
0.4
✗
0.333±0.107
0.031±0.015
0.635±0.106
0.712±0.052
TABLE II : Evaluation metrics of different policies with various comparison metrics and thresholds across various traffic densities.
Department of Computer Science and Engineering Chalmers University of Technology and and University of Gothenburg · Department of Mechanics and Maritime Sciences Chalmers University of Technology