Learning What Matters Now: Dynamic Preference Inference under Contextual Shifts
Authors: Xianwei Cao, Dou Quan, Zhenliang Zhang, Shuang Wang
Organizations: School of Artificial Intelligence, Xidian University, Xi’an, 710071, China · State Key Laboratory of General Artificial Intelligence, BIGAI, Beijing, China
Humans often juggle multiple, sometimes conflicting objectives and shift their priorities as circumstances change, rather than following a fixed objective function. In contrast, most computational decision-making and multi-objective RL methods assume static preference weights or a known scalar reward. In this work, we study sequential decision-making problem when these preference weights are unobserved latent variables that drift with context. Specifically, we propose Dynamic Preference Inference (DPI), a cognitively inspired framework in which an agent maintains a probabilistic belief over preference weights, updates this belief from recent interaction, and conditions its policy on inferred preferences. We instantiate DPI as a variational preference inference module trained jointly with a preference-conditioned actor-critic, using vector-valued returns as evidence about latent trade-offs. In queueing, maze, and multi-objective continuous-control environments with event-driven changes in objectives, DPI adapts its inferred preferences to new regimes and achieves higher post-shift performance than fixed-weight and heuristic envelope baselines.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Adaptive value preference adjustment in a queueing scenario. At early stages ( t1 ), the agent prioritizes morality and chooses to wait. As the deadline approaches ( t2 ), preferences between morality (M) and energy (E) become balanced. When time is nearly exhausted ( t3 ), energy becomes dominant and the agent rationalizes cutting in line, illustrating dynamic reweighting of values under changing pressures.
Figure 2: Two-stage cognitive-inspired decision framework. History states are transformed into latent preferences via Value Appraisal , which in turn guide the Action Selection . The resulting policy drives environment execution, forming a dynamic decision pipeline analogous to human appraisal–action coupling.
Figure 4: Event-aligned trajectories in Maze environment. After each event, DPI updates its preferences and modifies its behavior in a contextually appropriate way: (a) prioritizes shorter routes under deadline shock . (b) exhibits increased avoidance under hazard surge . (c) prefers waiting and selecting minimal-cost routes under energy drought . Arrows indicate agent motion; shaded regions mark environmental hazards or costs. (d) Alignment between inferred preferences and reward vectors. DPI maintains positive cosine similarity and sharply increases alignment after event onsets, whereas baselines remain near zero or negative, indicating that only DPI learns a value representation that tracks task semantics.
Figure 5: Ablation study results. (a) Post-Shift Performance (PS@K) curves over the first K=8 steps after each event. (b) Multi-step average PS@K, summarizing short-term recovery into a single metric for each method. (c) Mean episodic return (MER) as a function of history window size H . Across all plots, our full DPI agent consistently outperforms ablations, confirming the necessity of KL regularization, directional alignment, and self-consistency, and showing that performance is robust to H beyond a small temporal context.
Appendix figures & tables11 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 6: Two environments used in our experiments. (a) Queue provides a simple but illustrative toy problem. (b) Maze is mainly used in our experiments.
Environment
State Space
Action Space
Reward Vector
Dynamic Events
Queue
Symbolic: pos, queue_len, energy, deadline
Wait / Cut
progress , time penalty , fairness penalty , energy penalty , deadline penalty
Arrival burst ; Service slowdown ; Energy shock
Maze
Pixel: observation, time, energy
Up / Down / Left / Right
progress , time penalty , hazard penalty , energy penalty , deadline penalty
Deadline shock ; Hazard surge ; Energy drought
Appendix
Table 2: Detailed specifications of environments. Each domain introduces dynamic events that invalidate fixed preferences, requiring agents to adapt their value weights.
Figure 7: The architecture of our Value Appraisal Module, where the numbers represent channel numbers and kernel size
Figure 8: The architecture of our Action Selection Module, where the numbers represent channel numbers and kernel size.
Algorithm 1 Dynamic Preference Inference (DPI) with On-Policy Envelope Actor–Critic
Hyperparameter
Value
Learning rate
2.5×10−4
Batch size
1024 transitions per update
Discount factor
0.99
GAE parameter
0.95
PPO clip ratio ( ϵ )
0.2
Entropy coefficient
0.01
Appendix
Table 3: Hyperparameters used in all experiments. Values are shared across Maze and Queue unless otherwise noted.
Figure 9: Queue environment: Pareto fronts before and after the event. We approximate Pareto fronts in a 2D objective space (progress vs. deadline-related penalty) by training policies with fixed linear scalarizations ω over the vector reward. Each point is a policy; circles and triangles denote pre- and post-event regimes, respectively, and colors encode the dominant component of ω . The blue curve shows the pre-event Pareto front, which lies predominantly in the upper-left region (smaller deadline penalty with moderate progress), while the orange curve shows the post-event Pareto front, which shifts towards the lower-right (higher progress at the cost of larger deadline penalties). The scalarizations that are near-optimal in the pre-event regime induce strongly suboptimal trade-offs in the post-event regime, and vice versa, indicating that the Pareto-optimal preference configurations before and after the event are largely disjoint. This supports our claim that no single fixed ω over the exposed reward vector is robust across all event configurations.
Method
Queue
Maze
MER
SR ( % )
MER
SR ( % )
MER-PPO
15.01 ± 0.46
0.98±0.05
85.55 ± 0.12
0.05±0.01
SR-PPO
−5.64±5.22
46.91±0.00
−15.28±0.96
61.13±0.05
Dense Oracle
14.41±5.18
49.27±15.40
40.33±3.73
62.92±0.02
DPI-PPO
10.34±0.02
39.95±2.75
30.16±1.22
59.04±0.01
Appendix
Table 4: Comparison results on Queue and Maze.
Method
MER
SR(%)
ENVELOPE-PPO
13.52±9.89
53.28±12.00
Dense Oracle
66.95±5.78
99.98±0.01
DPI-PPO (Ours)
42.10±6.25
81.00±1.00
Appendix
Table 5: Comparison results on the modified continuous control environment. To handle a continuous action space, we adapt the rule-based ENVELOPE Q-learning baseline to a PPO actor–critic implementation (ENVELOPE-PPO). Dense Oracle is given privileged access to dynamic event signals and hand-crafted rules for updating the preference weights, whereas DPI-PPO (ours) only observes the standard environment state and must infer preferences purely from interaction.
γ
λ
MER
SR(%)
0.5
1.0
10.84±1.33
38.57±2.10
1.0
1.0
10.34±0.02
39.95±2.75
2.0
1.0
9.55±0.62
35.85±1.02
1.0
0.5
9.70±0.78
30.43±3.27
1.0
2.0
8.85±1.62
36.93±0.46
Appendix
Table 6: Hyperparameter sensitivity analysis. Here γ and λ are reported as relative multipliers around the default (γ0,λ0) used in the main experiments (i.e., 0.5 means 0.5γ0 ).
Figure 10: Mean episodic return (MER, left) and success rate (SR, right) as a function of environment steps. Solid lines show the mean over 10 random seeds and shaded regions denote the 95% confidence interval. DPI-PPO exhibits smooth and monotone improvement without divergence or collapse.
Decision-making problems often feature uncertainty stemming from heterogeneous and context-dependent human preferences. To address this, we propose a sequential learning-and-optimization pipeline to learn preference distributions and leverage them to solve downstream problems, for example risk-averse formulations. We focus on human choice settings that can be formulated as (integer) linear programs. In such settings, existing inverse optimization and choice modelling methods infer preferences from observed choices but typically produce point estimates or fail to capture contextual shifts, making them unsuitable for risk-averse decision-making. Using a bounded-variance score function gradient estimator, we train a predictive model mapping contextual features to a rich class of parameterizable distributions. This approach yields a maximum likelihood estimate. The model generates scenarios for unseen contexts in the subsequent optimization phase. In a synthetic ridesharing environment, our approach reduces average post-decision surprise by up to 114× compared to a risk-neutral approach with perfect predictions and up to 25× compared to leading risk-averse baselines.
Benjamin Hudson, Laurent Charlin, Emma Frejinger
Mila – Quebec Artificial Intelligence Institute, Montreal, Quebec, Canada · Département d’informatique et de recherche opérationnelle (DIRO), Université de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada · HEC Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Standard reinforcement learning (RL) optimizes policies for reward but imposes few constraints on how decisions evolve over time. As a result, policies may achieve high performance while exhibiting temporally incoherent behavior such as abrupt confidence shifts, oscillations, or degenerate inactivity. We introduce Dynamical Prior Reinforcement Learning (DP-RL), a training framework that augments policy gradient learning with an auxiliary loss derived from external state dynamics that implement evidence accumulation and hysteresis. Without modifying the reward, environment, or policy architecture, this prior shapes the temporal evolution of action probabilities during learning. Across three minimal environments, we show that dynamical priors systematically alter decision trajectories in task-dependent ways, promoting temporally structured behavior that cannot be explained by generic smoothing. These results demonstrate that training objectives alone can control the temporal geometry of decision-making in RL agents.
Preference-conditioned multi-objective reinforcement learning aims to learn a single policy that captures trade-offs across preferences, but under nonlinear scalarization the uniqueness and continuity of the preference-to-solution correspondence remain unclear. We study this problem in tabular multi-objective Markov decision processes (MDPs) using smooth Tchebycheff scalarization as a monotone utility. Under mild interior conditions on the preference set, we prove that each preference induces a unique Pareto-optimal return vector and that this vector depends Lipschitz-continuously on the preference, providing a principled foundation for preference sweeping toward dense Pareto-front coverage. To compute these targets, we formulate the problem over occupancy measures and derive Concave Mirror Descent Policy Iteration (CMDPI), which achieves an O(1/k) objective-suboptimality rate. We further show that each update is equivalent to solving a Kullback-Leibler-regularized MDP with the previous policy as reference, yielding a policy-iteration interpretation and finite-iterate policy continuity across preferences. We instantiate the update as a deep actor-critic algorithm preserving previous-policy regularization. On eight MO-Gymnasium tasks, it achieves the best average hypervolume rank among recent baselines and strong expected-utility performance. Continuous-control experiments indicate gains beyond the discrete-action setting.
Akihiro Kubo, Kosuke Nakanishi, Shin Ishii
International Research Center for Neurointelligence, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan · ATR Neural Information Analysis Laboratories, Kyoto, Japan · Department of Information Science, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan