Summary: This paper proposes a method for multi-objective Bayesian optimization when a user has given "preference order constraints", i.e. preferences about the importance of different objectives. For example, a user might specify that he or she wants to determine where, along the pareto front, a given objective varies significantly with respect to other objectives (which the authors term "diversity") or when the objective is static with respect to other objectives (which they term "stability"). The authors give algorithms for this setting and show empirical results on synthetic functions and on a model search task. Comments: My main criticism of this paper is that I am not convinced about the motivation for, and uses cases of, the described task of finding regions of the pareto front where an objective is "diverse" or "stable" as they are defined in the paper. There are two potential examples given in the introduction, but these are brief and unconvincing (another comment on these below). A real experiment is shown on a neural network model search task, but it is unclear how the method, when applied here, provides real benefits over other multi-objective optimization methods.

Methods for learning optimal policies use causal machine learning models to create human-interpretable rules for making choices around the allocation of different policy interventions. However, in realistic policy-making contexts, decision-makers often care about trade-offs between outcomes, not just single-mindedly maximising utility for one outcome. This paper proposes an approach termed Multi-Objective Policy Learning (MOPoL) which combines optimal decision trees for policy learning with a multi-objective Bayesian optimisation approach to explore the trade-off between multiple outcomes. It does this by building a Pareto frontier of non-dominated models for different hyperparameter settings which govern outcome weighting. The key here is that a low-cost greedy tree can be an accurate proxy for the very computationally costly optimal tree for the purposes of making decisions which means models can be repeatedly fit to learn a Pareto frontier. The method is applied to a real-world case-study of non-price rationing of anti-malarial medication in Kenya.

In this work we introduce a new framework for multi-objective Bayesian optimisation where the multi-objective functions can only be accessed via choice judgements, such as ``I pick options A,B,C among this set of five options A,B,C,D,E''. The fact that the option D is rejected means that there is at least one option among the selected ones A,B,C that I strictly prefer over D (but I do not have to specify which one). We assume that there is a latent vector function f for some dimension $n_e$ which embeds the options into the real vector space of dimension n, so that the choice set can be represented through a Pareto set of non-dominated options. By placing a Gaussian process prior on f and deriving a novel likelihood model for choice data, we propose a Bayesian framework for choice functions learning. We then apply this surrogate model to solve a novel multi-objective Bayesian optimisation from choice data problem.

We present a Bayesian multi-objective optimisation algorithm that allows the user to express preference-order constraints on the objectives of the type `objective A is more important than objective B'. Rather than attempting to find a representative subset of the complete Pareto front, our algorithm searches for and returns only those Pareto-optimal points that satisfy these constraints. We formulate a new acquisition function based on expected improvement in dominated hypervolume (EHI) to ensure that the subset of Pareto front satisfying the constraints is thoroughly explored. The hypervolume calculation only includes those points that satisfy the preference-order constraints, where the probability of a point satisfying the constraints is calculated from a gradient Gaussian Process model. We demonstrate our algorithm on both synthetic and real-world problems.