Bayesian Optimization
中文

Bibliography

Every work cited in the book. Each entry links back to the sections that cite it. Works that are not peer reviewed carry a badge: preprint, working paper, workshop paper, software (code, changelogs, documentation), or non-peer-reviewed.

A

  1. Aalto PML (2022). PPBO. GitHub. software §31.1 §31.3
  2. Abbasi-Yadkori, Y., Pál, D., and Szepesvári, C. (2011). Improved Algorithms for Linear Stochastic Bandits. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. §13.4 Ch. 13
  3. Abdelrahman, M., and Miller, C. (2022). Targeting occupant feedback using digital twins: Adaptive spatial-temporal thermal preference sampling to optimize personal comfort models. Building and Environment 218. §34.5
  4. Abdolshah, M., Shilton, A., Rana, S., Gupta, S., and Venkatesh, S. (2019). Multi-objective Bayesian optimisation with preferences over objectives. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. §28.7
  5. Abeille, M., Faury, L., and Calauzènes, C. (2021). Instance-Wise Minimax-Optimal Algorithms for Logistic Bandits. International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics. §21.4 §29.5
  6. Abram, S. J., Poggensee, K. L., Sánchez, N., Simha, S. N., Finley, J. M., Collins, S. H., and Donelan, J. M. (2022). General variability leads to specific adaptation toward optimal movement policies. Current Biology. §24.4 §39.7
  7. Adachi, M., Planden, B., Howey, D. A., Osborne, M. A., Orbell, S., Ares, N., Muandet, K., and Chau, S. L. (2024). Looping in the Human Collaborative and Explainable Bayesian Optimization. AISTATS 2024. §32.7 §34.2 §34.5
  8. Adachi, M., Chau, S. L., Xu, W., Singh, A., Osborne, M. A., and Muandet, K. (2025). Bayesian Optimization for Building Social-Influence-Free Consensus. arXiv. preprint §28.6 §34.1
  9. Adesiji, A. D., Wang, J., Kuo, C.-S., and Brown, K. A. (2026). Benchmarking self-driving labs. Digital Discovery. §15.3 §15.9 §23.5 Ch. 23 §36.7 Ch. 36 §46.7 Ch. 46 §47.6
  10. Afriat, S. N. (1972). Efficiency Estimation of Production Functions. International Economic Review. §40.2
  11. Afsar, B., Miettinen, K., and Ruiz, F. (2021). Assessing the Performance of Interactive Multiobjective Optimization Methods: A Survey. ACM Computing Surveys. §40.11 Ch. 40
  12. Afsar, B., Silvennoinen, J., Misitano, G., Ruiz, F., Ruiz, A. B., and Miettinen, K. (2022). Designing empirical experiments to compare interactive multiobjective optimization methods. Journal of the Operational Research Society. §40.11
  13. Agarwal, A., Agarwal, S., and Patil, P. (2021). Stochastic Dueling Bandits with Adversarial Corruption. Algorithmic Learning Theory. §29.10
  14. Agarwal, A., Ghuge, R., and Nagarajan, V. (2022). Batched Dueling Bandits. International Conference on Machine Learning. §29.7
  15. Agnihotri, A., Jain, R., Ramachandran, D., and Wen, Z. (2024). Online Bandit Learning with Offline Preference Data for Improved RLHF. arXiv (not accepted at TMLR). preprint §35.3
  16. Agnihotri, A., Jain, R., Ramachandran, D., and Wen, Z. (2026). Best Policy Learning From Trajectory Preference Feedback. International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics. §29.1
  17. Agranov, M., and Ortoleva, P. (2017). Stochastic Choice and Preferences for Randomization. Journal of Political Economy. §40.4 §40.14
  18. Agranov, M., and Ortoleva, P. (2022). Revealed Preferences for Randomization: An Overview. AEA Papers and Proceedings. §40.4 Ch. 40
  19. Agranov, M., and Ortoleva, P. (2025). Ranges of Randomization. Review of Economics and Statistics. §40.4 §40.8 §40.14 §45.2
  20. Agrawal, S., and Goyal, N. (2012). Analysis of Thompson Sampling for the Multi-armed Bandit Problem. Conference on Learning Theory. §13.2
  21. Agrawal, S., and Goyal, N. (2013). Further Optimal Regret Bounds for Thompson Sampling. International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics. §13.2 §13.3
  22. Ahmed, M. H., and Ghasemi, M. (2026). Multi-User Dueling Bandits: A Fair Approach using Nash Social Welfare. Transactions on Machine Learning Research. §35.6
  23. Akiba, T., Sano, S., Yanase, T., Ohta, T., and Koyama, M. (2019). Optuna: A Next-generation Hyperparameter Optimization Framework. Proceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD 2019). §14.8
  24. al-Shāṭibī, I. i. M. (2014). The Reconciliation of the Fundamentals of Islamic Law (Al-Muwāfaqāt fī Uṣūl al-Sharīʿa), Volume II. Garnet Publishing. §41.9
  25. Alanazi, E., Mouhoub, M., and Zilles, S. (2020). The complexity of exact learning of acyclic conditional preference networks from swap examples. Artificial Intelligence. doi:10.1016/j.artint.2019.103182. §36.3
  26. Alempaki, D., Canic, E., Mullett, T. L., Skylark, W. J., Starmer, C., Stewart, N., and Tufano, F. (2019). Reexamining How Utility and Weighting Functions Get Their Shapes: A Quasi-Adversarial Collaboration Providing a New Interpretation. Management Science. §37.3
  27. Alexy, R. (2024). Abwägung und Argumentation. Archiv für Rechts- und Sozialphilosophie. §42.2
  28. Alili, A., Nalam, V., Li, M., Liu, M., Feng, J., Si, J., and Huang, H. (2023). A Novel Framework to Facilitate User Preferred Tuning for a Robotic Knee Prosthesis. IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering. §33.2
  29. Alogna, V. K., Attaya, M. K., Aucoin, P., Bahník, Š., Birch, S., Birt, A. R., … Zwaan, R. A. (2014). Registered Replication Report: Schooler and Engstler-Schooler (1990). Perspectives on Psychological Science. §42.3
  30. Alós-Ferrer, C., Fehr, E., and Garagnani, M. (2023). Identifying Nontransitive Preferences. University of Zurich. working paper §16.7 §37.4 §37.6 §45.2
  31. Alpaydin, E., and Kaynak, C. (1998). Optical Recognition of Handwritten Digits. UCI Machine Learning Repository, data set, CC BY 4.0. doi:10.24432/C50P49. non-peer-reviewed §22.1 Ch. 22
  32. Ambuehl, S., Bernheim, B. D., and Lusardi, A. (2022). Evaluating Deliberative Competence: A Simple Method with an Application to Financial Choice. American Economic Review. §40.3 §45.2
  33. Ambur, O. (2004). Recognition-Primed Decision-Making: Implications for Record-Keeping by Organizations. Personal website. non-peer-reviewed §42.4
  34. Ament, S., Daulton, S., Eriksson, D., Balandat, M., and Bakshy, E. (2023). Unexpected Improvements to Expected Improvement for Bayesian Optimization. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36 (NeurIPS 2023). §12.3 §12.9 Ch. 12 §14.2 §C.5 Ch. C
  35. Amirian, B., Dale, A. S., Kalinin, S., and Hattrick-Simpers, J. (2025). Building Trustworthy AI for Materials Discovery: From Autonomous Laboratories to Z-scores. arXiv. preprint §36.7
  36. Amsterdam UMC (2008). Personalization of Hearing Aids through Bayesian Preference Elicitation. Trial registry, onderzoekmetmensen.nl. non-peer-reviewed §33.4
  37. An, Z., Nakshbandi, D., and Du, W. (2026). Differential Voting: Loss Functions For Axiomatically Diverse Aggregation of Heterogeneous Preferences. arXiv. preprint §29.9 §35.4
  38. Ananthakrishnan, N., Bedaywi, M., Jordan, M. I., Russell, S., and Haghtalab, N. (2026). Provably Optimal Learning Algorithms for Assistance Games. arXiv (a 2026 AI4GOOD Workshop version also exists). preprint §36.2
  39. Anderson, E. (2023). Dewey’s Moral Philosophy. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. non-peer-reviewed §41.4
  40. Anderson, A., Maystre, L., Anderson, I., Mehrotra, R., and Lalmas, M. (2020). Algorithmic Effects on the Diversity of Consumption on Spotify. Proceedings of The Web Conference 2020. §42.2
  41. Andersson, D., Lindberg, M., Tinghög, G., and Persson, E. (2025). No evidence for decision fatigue using large-scale field data from healthcare. Communications Psychology. §37.2 §37.6 §45.2
  42. Andreoni, J., and Miller, J. (2002). Giving According to GARP: An Experimental Test of the Consistency of Preferences for Altruism. Econometrica. §40.2
  43. Andreoni, J., Gillen, B. J., and Harbaugh, W. T. (2013). The Power of Revealed Preference Tests: Ex-Post Evaluation of Experimental Design. Working paper (author's website). working paper §40.2
  44. Antognini, D., and Faltings, B. (2021). Fast Multi-Step Critiquing for VAE-based Recommender Systems. Fifteenth ACM Conference on Recommender Systems. doi:10.1145/3460231.3474249. §36.4
  45. Apesteguia, J., and Ballester, M. A. (2018). Monotone Stochastic Choice Models: The Case of Risk and Time Preferences. Journal of Political Economy. §16.7 §37.4 Ch. 37
  46. Arens, P., Quirk, D. A., Pan, W., Yacoby, Y., Doshi-Velez, F., and Walsh, C. J. (2025). Preference-based assistance optimization for lifting and lowering with a soft back exosuit. Science Advances. doi:10.1126/sciadv.adu2099. §33.1 §34.4
  47. Aridor, G., Chou, W., Kallus, N., Scheid, A., Tren, A., and Zielincki, K. (2026). Recommendation Quality and the Concentration of Consumption: Experimental Evidence from Netflix. arXiv. preprint §41.8 §42.2
  48. Armand, M., Herrnberger, L., Jung, C., and Czaczkes, T. J. (2026). No evidence of a decoy effect in bees: Rewardless flowers do not increase bumblebees' preference for neighbouring flowers. Ecological Entomology. doi:10.1111/een.70092. §43.1
  49. Arnould, E. J., and Thompson, C. J. (2005). Consumer Culture Theory (CCT): Twenty Years of Research. Journal of Consumer Research. §42.5
  50. Aronszajn, N. (1950). Theory of Reproducing Kernels. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society. §10.2 Ch. 10
  51. Arrow, K. J. (1950). A Difficulty in the Concept of Social Welfare. Journal of Political Economy. §40.7
  52. Arshamian, A., Gerkin, R. C., Kruspe, N., Wnuk, E., Floyd, S., O’Meara, C., … Majid, A. (2022). The perception of odor pleasantness is shared across cultures. Current Biology. §42.1
  53. Arun Kumar A V, Shilton, A., Gupta, S., Rana, S., Greenhill, S., and Venkatesh, S. (2024). Enhanced Bayesian Optimization via Preferential Modeling of Abstract Properties. ECML PKDD 2024. §34.2 §34.5
  54. arXiv (2026a). Abstract search: preference terms AND "Bayesian optimization". arXiv API. non-peer-reviewed §31.8
  55. arXiv (2026b). Abstract search: preferential AND Bayesian AND (optimization OR optimisation). arXiv API. non-peer-reviewed §26.7 §31.8
  56. Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: I. A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied. §38.1
  57. Asghari, S. M., Chute, C., Dwaracherla, V., Lu, X., Jafarnia, M., Minden, V., Wen, Z., and Van Roy, B. (2026). Efficient Exploration at Scale. arXiv. preprint §35.3
  58. Ashton, H., and Franklin, M. (2022). Solutions to preference manipulation in recommender systems require knowledge of meta-preferences. FAccTRec Workshop (RecSys 2022). workshop paper §41.2 §45.5
  59. Astudillo, R. (2023a). qEUBO. GitHub. software §31.1 §31.3 §31.6
  60. Astudillo, R. (2023b). qEUBO author code repository: noise-level calibration script get_noise_level.py (the calibrated Ackley noise levels are set in experiments/ackley_runner.py). GitHub. software §28.9 §31.4
  61. Astudillo, R., and Frazier, P. (2020). Multi-attribute Bayesian optimization with interactive preference learning. International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics. §28.6 §28.7 §31.8
  62. Astudillo, R., Lin, Z. J., Bakshy, E., and Frazier, P. (2023). qEUBO: A Decision-Theoretic Acquisition Function for Preferential Bayesian Optimization. International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics. §17.4 §19.3 §19.4 Ch. 19 §20.1 §20.3 §26.4 §26.8 Ch. 26 §27.1 §28.1 §28.2 §28.4 §28.5 §28.6 §28.7 §28.9 §28.10 Ch. 28 §29.4 §29.6 Ch. 29 §30.3 §31.4 §31.5 §31.6 §31.8 §34.3 §34.5 §36.3 §36.10 §40.11 §45.1 Ch. C
  63. Astudillo, R., Li, K., Tucker, M., Cheng, C. X., Ames, A. D., and Yue, Y. (2025). Preferential Multi-Objective Bayesian Optimization. Transactions on Machine Learning Research. §27.2 §28.5 §28.7 §28.8 §31.8 §33.1 §34.5
  64. Astudillo Marban, R. (2022). Exploiting Composite Functions in Bayesian Optimization. Cornell University. thesis §31.8
  65. Attia, G. E. (2007). Towards Realization of the Higher Intents of Islamic Law: Maqāṣid al-Sharīʿah: A Functional Approach. International Institute of Islamic Thought. §41.9
  66. Attia, P. M., Grover, A., Jin, N., Severson, K. A., Markov, T. M., Liao, Y.-H., … Chueh, W. C. (2020). Closed-Loop Optimization of Fast-Charging Protocols for Batteries with Machine Learning. Nature. §15.1 §15.3 §15.9
  67. Auer, P., Cesa-Bianchi, N., and Fischer, P. (2002). Finite-time Analysis of the Multiarmed Bandit Problem. Machine Learning. §13.2 §13.5 Ch. 13
  68. Austin, D. E., Korikov, A., Toroghi, A., and Sanner, S. (2024a). Bayesian Optimization with LLM-Based Acquisition Functions for Natural Language Preference Elicitation. RecSys 2024 (arXiv v2). §5.2 §26.5 §28.6 §35.2
  69. Austin, D. E., Korikov, A., Toroghi, A., and Sanner, S. (2024b). Bayesian Optimization with LLM-Based Acquisition Functions for Natural Language Preference Elicitation. arXiv. preprint §35.5
  70. AutoML.org (2026). smac 2.4.1. PyPI. software §14.8 §31.1
  71. Avelino, R. M., Sevastjanova, R., Van Mele, T., Block, P., and El-Assady, M. (2026). Creativity from Friction: Human-AI Interaction for Exploratory Structural Design. ICML 2026 Workshop on Human-AI Co-Creativity. workshop paper §32.9
  72. Awalgaonkar, N., Bilionis, I., Liu, X., Karava, P., and Tzempelikos, A. (2019). Learning Personalized Thermal Preferences via Bayesian Active Learning with Unimodality Constraints. arXiv. preprint §34.1
  73. Azar, M. G., Rowland, M., Piot, B., Guo, D., Calandriello, D., Valko, M., and Munos, R. (2024). A General Theoretical Paradigm to Understand Learning from Human Preferences. AISTATS 2024. §35.1 §35.4
  74. Azzalini, A. (1985). A Class of Distributions Which Includes the Normal Ones. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics. §17.1

B

  1. Baek, S., Park, S., and Kim, D. (2026). Context-Continuous Preference Learning for Exoskeleton Personalization. arXiv. preprint §33.1
  2. Bagaïni, A., Liu, Y., Kapoor, M., Son, G., Bürkner, P.-C., Tisdall, L., and Mata, R. (2025). A systematic review and meta-analyses of the temporal stability and convergent validity of risk preference measures. Nature Human Behaviour. doi:10.1038/s41562-024-02085-2. §16.1 §37.1 §42.1 §45.1
  3. Bai, C., Zhang, Y., Qiu, S., Zhang, Q., Xu, K., and Li, X. (2025). Online Preference Alignment for Language Models via Count-based Exploration. ICLR 2025. §35.3
  4. Bakshy, E., Messing, S., and Adamic, L. A. (2015). Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook. Science. §36.4 §42.2
  5. Balandat, M., Karrer, B., Jiang, D. R., Daulton, S., Letham, B., Wilson, A. G., and Bakshy, E. (2020). BoTorch: A Framework for Efficient Monte-Carlo Bayesian Optimization. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33 (NeurIPS 2020). §2.6 §8.6 §11.5 §12.6 §12.9 §14.2 §14.3 §14.8 Ch. 14 §19.2 §C.5 Ch. C
  6. Ballesta, S., Shi, W., Conen, K. E., and Padoa-Schioppa, C. (2020). Values encoded in orbitofrontal cortex are causally related to economic choices. Nature. §39.1 §39.9
  7. Balling, L. W., Mølgaard, L. L., Townend, O., and Nielsen, J. B. B. (2021). The Collaboration between Hearing Aid Users and Artificial Intelligence to Optimize Sound. Seminars in Hearing. doi:10.1055/s-0041-1735135. §33.4
  8. Baltzell, L. S., Xia, J., and Kalluri, S. (2018). Efficient characterization of individual differences in compression ratio preference. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. doi:10.1121/1.5067390. §32.5 §33.4
  9. Banerjee, K., and Mitra, T. (2018). On Wold’s approach to representation of preferences. Journal of Mathematical Economics. doi:10.1016/j.jmateco.2018.08.007. §43.4
  10. Banki, D., Simonsohn, U., Walatka, R., and Wu, G. (2025). Decisions under Risk Are Decisions under Complexity: Comment. SSRN. working paper §40.12
  11. Bar-Hillel, M. (1980). The Base-Rate Fallacy in Probability Judgments. Acta Psychologica. §2.5
  12. Bartra, O., McGuire, J. T., and Kable, J. W. (2013). The valuation system: A coordinate-based meta-analysis of BOLD fMRI experiments examining neural correlates of subjective value. NeuroImage. §39.1
  13. Basieva, I., Cervantes, V. H., Dzhafarov, E. N., and Khrennikov, A. (2019). True contextuality beats direct influences in human decision making. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. §43.4
  14. Basu, C., Yang, Q., Hungerman, D., Singhal, M., and Dragan, A. D. (2017). Do You Want Your Autonomous Car To Drive Like You? HRI 2017. §34.1
  15. Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Muraven, M., and Tice, D. M. (1998). Ego depletion: Is the active self a limited resource? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. §37.2
  16. Bavard, S., and Palminteri, S. (2023). The functional form of value normalization in human reinforcement learning. eLife. §37.3 §37.6 §45.2 §45.4
  17. Bavard, S., Lebreton, M., Khamassi, M., Coricelli, G., and Palminteri, S. (2018). Reference-point centering and range-adaptation enhance human reinforcement learning at the cost of irrational preferences. Nature Communications. §16.2 §37.3 §45.2
  18. Bavard, S., Rustichini, A., and Palminteri, S. (2021). Two sides of the same coin: Beneficial and detrimental consequences of range adaptation in human reinforcement learning. Science Advances. §37.3
  19. Bayes, T. (1763). An Essay towards Solving a Problem in the Doctrine of Chances. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. §2.1
  20. Belkin, M. (2018). Approximation Beats Concentration? An Approximation View on Inference with Smooth Radial Kernels. Proceedings of the 31st Conference on Learning Theory. §10.5
  21. Bemporad (2023). GLIS. GitHub. software §31.1
  22. Bemporad, A., and Piga, D. (2021). Global optimization based on active preference learning with radial basis functions. Machine Learning. §26.3 §27.3 §31.8 §33.1 §33.6
  23. Ben-Artzi, I., Rozenkrantz, L., and Shahar, N. (2026). Autism-associated learning patterns show reduced credit assignment to outcome-irrelevant features. Translational Psychiatry. §38.10
  24. Benade, G., Nath, S., Procaccia, A., and Shah, N. (2017). Preference Elicitation For Participatory Budgeting. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. §44.3
  25. Benadè, G., Nath, S., Procaccia, A. D., and Shah, N. (2021). Preference Elicitation for Participatory Budgeting. Management Science. §44.3
  26. Benavoli, A., and Azzimonti, D. (2024). Linearly Constrained Gaussian Processes are SkewGPs: application to Monotonic Preference Learning and Desirability. Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence. §27.3
  27. Benavoli, A., and Azzimonti, D. (2026a). A tutorial on learning from preferences and choices with Gaussian Processes. Foundations and Trends in Machine Learning 19(1):1-120. §20.1 §20.4 Ch. 20 §26.5 Ch. 26 §27.2 Ch. 27 §31.8 Ch. 31
  28. Benavoli, and Azzimonti (2026b). prefGP. GitHub. software §31.1
  29. Benavoli, A., Azzimonti, D., and Piga, D. (2020). Skew Gaussian processes for classification. Machine Learning. §27.3 §29.8
  30. Benavoli, A., Azzimonti, D., and Piga, D. (2021a). A unified framework for closed-form nonparametric regression, classification, preference and mixed problems with Skew Gaussian Processes. Machine Learning. §27.3 §29.8
  31. Benavoli, A., Azzimonti, D., and Piga, D. (2021b). Choice functions based multi-objective Bayesian optimisation. arXiv. preprint §28.8 §34.5
  32. Benavoli, A., Azzimonti, D., and Piga, D. (2021c). Preferential Bayesian optimisation with skew gaussian processes. Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference Companion. §17.5 §17.6 §17.7 Ch. 17 §20.4 §26.3 §27.2 §27.4 §27.7 Ch. 27 §28.1 §28.5 §28.7 §28.8 §29.8 §29.11 §31.8 §46.3
  33. Benavoli, A., Azzimonti, D., and Piga, D. (2023). Learning Choice Functions with Gaussian Processes. Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence. §17.4 §20.1 §27.2 §28.6
  34. Benavoli, A., Azzimonti, D., and Piga, D. (2025). SkewGP. GitHub. software §31.1
  35. Bengs, V., Busa-Fekete, R., El Mesaoudi-Paul, A., and Hüllermeier, E. (2021). Preference-based Online Learning with Dueling Bandits: A Survey. Journal of Machine Learning Research. §21.1 Ch. 21 §26.7 §26.8 Ch. 26 §29.1 §29.8 Ch. 29 §31.8
  36. Bengs, V., Saha, A., and Hüllermeier, E. (2022). Stochastic Contextual Dueling Bandits under Linear Stochastic Transitivity Models. International Conference on Machine Learning. §29.1
  37. Bengs, V., Haddenhorst, B., and Hüllermeier, E. (2024). Identifying Copeland Winners in Dueling Bandits with Indifferences. International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics. §29.7 §29.10
  38. Benkert, J.-M., Liu, S., and Netzer, N. (2026). Time is Knowledge: What Response Times Reveal. working paper (arXiv). working paper §29.10 §39.3
  39. Bénon, J., Lee, D., Hopper, W., Verdeil, M., Pessiglione, M., Vinckier, F., … Daunizeau, J. (2024). The online metacognitive control of decisions. Communications Psychology. doi:10.1038/s44271-024-00071-y. §46.6
  40. Bergna, R., Depeweg, S., and Hernández-Lobato, J. M. (2026). Decoupled PFNs: Identifiable Epistemic-Aleatoric Decomposition via Structured Synthetic Priors. arXiv. preprint §30.5
  41. Bergstra, J., and Bengio, Y. (2012). Random Search for Hyper-Parameter Optimization. Journal of Machine Learning Research. §1.2 §1.6 Ch. 1 §11.4 §11.6 §15.2 Ch. 22 §22.2 §22.3 §22.4 Ch. 22
  42. Bergstra, J., Bardenet, R., Bengio, Y., and Kégl, B. (2011). Algorithms for Hyper-Parameter Optimization. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 24 (NeurIPS 2011). §14.8 §15.2
  43. Berkenkamp, F., Schoellig, A. P., and Krause, A. (2016). Safe Controller Optimization for Quadrotors with Gaussian Processes. IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA 2016). §15.1 §15.4
  44. Berkenkamp, F., Schoellig, A. P., and Krause, A. (2019). No-Regret Bayesian Optimization with Unknown Hyperparameters. Journal of Machine Learning Research. §13.5
  45. Berlinet, A., and Thomas-Agnan, C. (2004). Reproducing Kernel Hilbert Spaces in Probability and Statistics. Springer. §10.3 Ch. 10
  46. Bernheim, B. D., and Rangel, A. (2009). Beyond Revealed Preference: Choice-Theoretic Foundations for Behavioral Welfare Economics *. Quarterly Journal of Economics. §40.3 §45.2
  47. Berns, G. S., and Moore, S. E. (2012). A neural predictor of cultural popularity. Journal of Consumer Psychology. doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2011.05.001. §39.2
  48. Berridge, K. C., and Robinson, T. E. (1998). What is the role of dopamine in reward: hedonic impact, reward learning, or incentive salience? Brain Research Reviews. §39.6
  49. Berry, D. R., Hoerr, J. P., Cesko, S., Alayoubi, A., Carpio, K., Zirzow, H., … Beaver, V. (2020). Does Mindfulness Training Without Explicit Ethics-Based Instruction Promote Prosocial Behaviors? A Meta-Analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. §41.9
  50. Bewley, T. F. (2002). Knightian decision theory. Part I. Decisions in Economics and Finance. §40.8
  51. Bhatia, S., and Loomes, G. (2017). Noisy preferences in risky choice: A cautionary note. Psychological Review. §16.7 §37.4 §45.2
  52. Bhatnagar, R., and Orquin, J. L. (2022). A meta-analysis on the effect of visual attention on choice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. §39.3 §39.9 Ch. 39 §46.4
  53. Bignardi, G., Wesseldijk, L. W., Mas-Herrero, E., Zatorre, R. J., Ullén, F., Fisher, S. E., and Mosing, M. A. (2025). Twin modelling reveals partly distinct genetic pathways to music enjoyment. Nature Communications. §38.8
  54. Bikhchandani, S., Hirshleifer, D., and Welch, I. (1992). A Theory of Fads, Fashion, Custom, and Cultural Change as Informational Cascades. Journal of Political Economy. §38.1
  55. Binmore, K. (2009). Rational Decisions. Princeton University Press. §40.8
  56. Binz, M., Gershman, S. J., Schulz, E., and Endres, D. (2022). Heuristics from bounded meta-learned inference. Psychological Review. §37.5
  57. Binz, M., Akata, E., Bethge, M., Brändle, F., Callaway, F., Coda-Forno, J., … Schulz, E. (2025). A foundation model to predict and capture human cognition. Nature. §37.4
  58. Bishop, C. M. (2006). Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning. Springer. Ch. 2 §4.4 §4.5 Ch. 4 Ch. 5 §6.2 Ch. B
  59. Biswas, A., Liu, Y., Creange, N., Liu, Y.-C., Jesse, S., Yang, J.-C., … Vasudevan, R. K. (2024). A dynamic Bayesian optimized active recommender system for curiosity-driven partially Human-in-the-loop automated experiments. npj Computational Materials. §34.2 §34.5
  60. Biswas, A., Funakubo, H., and Liu, Y. (2026). Human-AI Collaborative Autonomous Experimentation With Proxy Modeling for Comparative Observation. arXiv. preprint §34.2
  61. Bıyık, E., and Sadigh, D. (2018). Batch Active Preference-Based Learning of Reward Functions. CoRL 2018. §33.6
  62. Bıyık, E., Palan, M., Landolfi, N. C., Losey, D. P., and Sadigh, D. (2019). Asking Easy Questions: A User-Friendly Approach to Active Reward Learning. CoRL 2019. §20.3 §20.4 §20.7 Ch. 20 §26.2 §27.2 §28.1 §28.6 §28.7 §30.7 §33.6 §46.6
  63. Bıyık, E., Huynh, N., Kochenderfer, M. J., and Sadigh, D. (2020). Active Preference-Based Gaussian Process Regression for Reward Learning. RSS 2020. §17.2 §18.4 §27.3 §27.4 §33.6
  64. Bıyık, E., Talati, A., and Sadigh, D. (2021). APReL: A Library for Active Preference-based Reward Learning Algorithms. arXiv. software §33.6
  65. Bıyık, E., Losey, D. P., Palan, M., Landolfi, N. C., Shevchuk, G., and Sadigh, D. (2022). Learning Reward Functions from Diverse Sources of Human Feedback: Optimally Integrating Demonstrations and Preferences. IJRR. §33.6
  66. Black, D. (1948). On the Rationale of Group Decision-making. Journal of Political Economy. §40.7
  67. Bleidorn, W., Schwaba, T., Zheng, A., Hopwood, C. J., Sosa, S. S., Roberts, B. W., and Briley, D. A. (2022). Personality stability and change: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin. §38.6 §38.13
  68. Blitzstein, J. K., and Hwang, J. (2019). Introduction to Probability. Chapman and Hall/CRC. §2.1 Ch. 2 §4.1 §4.3 Ch. 4
  69. Blum, A., Jackson, J., Sandholm, T., and Zinkevich, M. (2004). Preference Elicitation and Query Learning. Journal of Machine Learning Research. §36.3
  70. Blum, A., Gupta, M., Li, G., Manoj, N. S., Saha, A., and Yang, Y. (2024). Dueling Optimization with a Monotone Adversary. International Conference on Algorithmic Learning Theory. §29.1
  71. Bobadilla-Suarez, S., and Love, B. C. (2018). Fast or frugal, but not both: Decision heuristics under time pressure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. §37.5
  72. Bochner, S. (1933). Monotone Funktionen, Stieltjessche Integrale und harmonische Analyse. Mathematische Annalen. §10.4
  73. Boerstler, K., Keswani, V., Chan, L., Borg, J. S., Conitzer, V., Heidari, H., and Sinnott-Armstrong, W. (2024). On The Stability of Moral Preferences: A Problem with Computational Elicitation Methods. AIES. §38.5 Ch. 38
  74. Bogacz, R., Brown, E., Moehlis, J., Holmes, P., and Cohen, J. D. (2006). The physics of optimal decision making: A formal analysis of models of performance in two-alternative forced-choice tasks. Psychological Review. §39.3 Ch. 39
  75. Bogunovic, I., Scarlett, J., and Cevher, V. (2016). Time-Varying Gaussian Process Bandit Optimization. AISTATS 2016. §29.10
  76. Bogunovic, I., Krause, A., and Scarlett, J. (2020). Corruption-Tolerant Gaussian Process Bandit Optimization. International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics. §29.10
  77. Bokhari, F. A. S., Brodeur, A., and Drouvelis, M. (2025a). Introduction to the symposium on reproducibility and replicability in economics: Part I. Economic Inquiry. §40.12
  78. Bokhari, F. A. S., Brodeur, A., and Drouvelis, M. (2025b). Introduction to the symposium on reproducibility and replicability in economics: Part II. Economic Inquiry. §40.12
  79. Bonilla, E. V., Zhao, H., and Steinberg, D. M. (2026). Causal Preference Elicitation. ICML 2026 (per OpenReview). §36.3
  80. Bontrager, P., Lin, W., Togelius, J., and Risi, S. (2018). Deep Interactive Evolution. EvoMUSART 2018. §36.5
  81. Bose, A., Xiong, Z., Chi, Y., Du, S. S., Xiao, L., and Fazel, M. (2025). LoRe: Personalizing LLMs via Low-Rank Reward Modeling. Conference on Language Modeling (COLM 2025). §35.6
  82. Bostyn, D. H., Sevenhant, S., and Roets, A. (2018). Of Mice, Men, and Trolleys: Hypothetical Judgment Versus Real-Life Behavior in Trolley-Style Moral Dilemmas. Psychological Science. §38.5
  83. Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Harvard University Press. §42.1
  84. Boutilier, C. (2002). A POMDP Formulation of Preference Elicitation Problems. Proceedings of the Eighteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-02). §36.3 §36.8
  85. Bouwmeester, S., Verkoeijen, P. P. J. L., Aczel, B., Barbosa, F., Bègue, L., Brañas-Garza, P., … Wollbrant, C. E. (2017). Registered Replication Report: Rand, Greene, and Nowak (2012). Perspectives on Psychological Science. §38.4 §38.13
  86. Box, G. E. P., and Muller, M. E. (1958). A Note on the Generation of Random Normal Deviates. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics. §4.3
  87. Bradley, R. A., and Terry, M. E. (1952). Rank Analysis of Incomplete Block Designs: I. The Method of Paired Comparisons. Biometrika. §16.4 Ch. 16 §20.1
  88. Brans, J. P., and Vincke, P. (1985). Note—A Preference Ranking Organisation Method: (The PROMETHEE Method for Multiple Criteria Decision-Making). Management Science. §40.10
  89. Brehm, J. W. (1956). Postdecision changes in the desirability of alternatives. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. §37.2
  90. Brickman, P., Coates, D., and Janoff-Bulman, R. (1978). Lottery winners and accident victims: Is happiness relative? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. §38.4
  91. Brieber, D., Nadal, M., and Leder, H. (2015). In the white cube: Museum context enhances the valuation and memory of art. Acta Psychologica. §42.5
  92. Brielmann, A. A., and Dayan, P. (2022). A computational model of aesthetic value. Psychological Review. §41.5 §44.6 Ch. 44
  93. Brielmann, A. A., Berentelg, M., and Dayan, P. (2024). Modelling individual aesthetic judgements over time. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. §44.6 §44.9 §45.3 §45.4
  94. Brochu, E., de Freitas, N., and Ghosh, A. (2007). Active Preference Learning with Discrete Choice Data. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. §11.5 §18.1 §19.3 Ch. 19 §20.3 §26.1 §27.1 §28.1 §28.5 §32.1
  95. Brochu, E., Cora, V. M., and de Freitas, N. (2010). A Tutorial on Bayesian Optimization of Expensive Cost Functions, with Application to Active User Modeling and Hierarchical Reinforcement Learning. arXiv preprint. preprint §11.5 Ch. 11 §12.2 §12.3 §31.8
  96. Broukhim, A., Shen, Y., Ammanabrolu, P., and Weibel, N. (2025). Preference-Based Learning in Audio Applications: A Systematic Analysis. arXiv. preprint §33.4
  97. Brown, E. (2026). Recommended Selves: Authenticity and Algorithmic Filtering. Journal of the American Philosophical Association. §41.2
  98. Brown, A. L., Imai, T., Vieider, F. M., and Camerer, C. F. (2024). Meta-analysis of Empirical Estimates of Loss Aversion. Journal of Economic Literature. §40.1 §45.2 §46.2
  99. Bruhin, A., Fehr, E., and Schunk, D. (2019). The many Faces of Human Sociality: Uncovering the Distribution and Stability of Social Preferences. Journal of the European Economic Association. §40.1
  100. Bruineberg, J., Dołęga, K., Dewhurst, J., and Baltieri, M. (2021). The Emperor's New Markov Blankets. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. §39.5
  101. Bubeck, S., Munos, R., and Stoltz, G. (2009). Pure Exploration in Multi-armed Bandits Problems. Algorithmic Learning Theory (ALT 2009). §13.1 §13.5
  102. Budish, E., and Kessler, J. B. (2022). Can Market Participants Report Their Preferences Accurately (Enough)? Management Science. §16.1
  103. Bukharin, A., Li, Y., He, P., and Zhao, T. (2023). Deep Reinforcement Learning from Hierarchical Preference Design. International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML 2025). §36.8
  104. Bukharin, A., Hong, I., Jiang, H., Li, Z., Zhang, Q., Zhang, Z., and Zhao, T. (2024). Robust Reinforcement Learning from Corrupted Human Feedback. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. §29.10
  105. Bull, A. D. (2011). Convergence Rates of Efficient Global Optimization Algorithms. Journal of Machine Learning Research. §13.5
  106. Burger, B., Maffettone, P. M., Gusev, V. V., Aitchison, C. M., Bai, Y., Wang, X., … Cooper, A. I. (2020). A Mobile Robotic Chemist. Nature. §15.1 §15.3
  107. Busemeyer, J. R., and Townsend, J. T. (1993). Decision field theory: A dynamic-cognitive approach to decision making in an uncertain environment. Psychological Review. §39.3
  108. Busemeyer, J., and Wang, Z. (2017). Is there a problem with quantum models of psychological measurements? PLOS ONE. §37.4
  109. Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. §38.7
  110. Butler, D. J., and Pogrebna, G. (2018). Predictably intransitive preferences. Judgment and Decision Making. §16.7 §37.4

C

  1. Cai, X., and Scarlett, J. (2021). On Lower Bounds for Standard and Robust Gaussian Process Bandit Optimization. International Conference on Machine Learning. §29.7
  2. Cai, H., Li, Y., Yu, T., Zhu, F., Wang, W., Feng, F., and Li, W. (2026). One Adapts to Any: Meta Reward Modeling for Personalized LLM Alignment. SIGIR 2026. §35.6
  3. Calandra, R., Seyfarth, A., Peters, J., and Deisenroth, M. P. (2016). Bayesian Optimization for Learning Gaits under Uncertainty. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence. §15.4 Ch. 15
  4. Camerer, C. F., Dreber, A., Forsell, E., Ho, T.-H., Huber, J., Johannesson, M., … Wu, H. (2016). Evaluating replicability of laboratory experiments in economics. Science. §40.12
  5. Camerer, C. F., Dreber, A., Holzmeister, F., Ho, T.-H., Huber, J., Johannesson, M., … Wu, H. (2018). Evaluating the replicability of social science experiments in Nature and Science between 2010 and 2015. Nature Human Behaviour. §40.12
  6. Cao, L., Shi, M., and Shroff, N. B. (2026). Provably Efficient Personalized Multi-Objective Bandits with Proactive Conversational Queries. UAI 2026. §29.9
  7. Carroll, M., Dragan, A., Russell, S., and Hadfield-Menell, D. (2022). Estimating and Penalizing Induced Preference Shifts in Recommender Systems. ICML 2022. §36.2 §36.10 §42.2 Ch. 42 §45.2 §46.8 Ch. 46
  8. Carroll, M., Chan, A., Ashton, H., and Krueger, D. (2023). Characterizing Manipulation from AI Systems. Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Optimization. §41.2 Ch. 41 §45.5 §46.8
  9. Carroll, M., Foote, D., Siththaranjan, A., Russell, S., and Dragan, A. (2024). AI Alignment with Changing and Influenceable Reward Functions. International Conference on Machine Learning. §26.5 §36.2 §36.8 Ch. 36 §41.2 §42.2 §45.3 §45.5 Ch. 45 Ch. 47
  10. Carstensen, L. L., Isaacowitz, D. M., and Charles, S. T. (1999). Taking Time Seriously: A Theory of Socioemotional Selectivity. American Psychologist. §42.1
  11. Carver, C. S., and Scheier, M. F. (1982). Control theory: A useful conceptual framework for personality–social, clinical, and health psychology. Psychological Bulletin. §38.2
  12. Casper, S., Davies, X., Shi, C., Gilbert, T. K., Scheurer, J., Rando, J., … Hadfield-Menell, D. (2023). Open Problems and Fundamental Limitations of Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback. TMLR 2023. §36.1
  13. Catkin, B., and Patoglu, V. (2023). Preference-Based Human-in-the-Loop Optimization for Perceived Realism of Haptic Rendering. IEEE Transactions on Haptics. doi:10.1109/toh.2023.3266726. §32.1
  14. Cawley, G. C., and Talbot, N. L. C. (2010). On Over-fitting in Model Selection and Subsequent Selection Bias in Performance Evaluation. Journal of Machine Learning Research. §22.3 §22.5 Ch. 22
  15. Celikors, E., and Field, D. J. (2025). Beauty is in the eye of your cohort: Structured individual differences allow predictions of individualized aesthetic ratings of images. Cognition. §41.5
  16. Cella, C., Ristic, M., Faroni, M., Zanchettin, A. M., and Rocco, P. (2026). Adaptive Human-Robot Collaborative Painting Combining Preference-Based Optimization and Dynamic Motion Primitives. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters. doi:10.1109/LRA.2026.3683596. §33.6
  17. Cen, S., Mei, J., Goshvadi, K., Dai, H., Yang, T., Yang, S., … Dai, B. (2025). Value-Incentivized Preference Optimization: A Unified Approach to Online and Offline RLHF. ICLR 2025. §35.3
  18. Cercola, M., Capretti, V., and Formentin, S. (2026a). Efficient Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback via Bayesian Preference Inference. IFAC Journal of Systems and Control. doi:10.1016/j.ifacsc.2026.100398. §35.3
  19. Cercola, M., Lomuscio, M., Piga, D., and Formentin, S. (2026b). Regularized GLISp for sensor-guided human-in-the-loop optimization. IFAC Journal of Systems and Control. doi:10.1016/j.ifacsc.2026.100368. §34.1
  20. Cervantes, V. H., and Dzhafarov, E. N. (2018). Snow queen is evil and beautiful: Experimental evidence for probabilistic contextuality in human choices. Decision. §43.4
  21. Cettolin, E., and Riedl, A. (2019). Revealed preferences under uncertainty: Incomplete preferences and preferences for randomization. Journal of Economic Theory. §40.8 Ch. 40 §43.4 §44.9 §45.2
  22. Chajewska, U., Koller, D., and Parr, R. (2000). Making Rational Decisions using Adaptive Utility Elicitation. Proceedings of the Seventeenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-00). §36.3 §40.11
  23. Chakraborty, T., Wirth, C., and Seifert, C. (2025a). Comparative Explanations: Explanation Guided Decision Making for Human-in-the-Loop Preference Selection. World Conference on eXplainable AI 2025. §32.7
  24. Chakraborty, T., Koelle, M., Schlötterer, J., Schlicker, N., Wirth, C., and Seifert, C. (2025b). Explanation format does not matter; but explanations do – An Eggsbert study on explaining Bayesian Optimisation tasks. Information Systems Frontiers. doi:10.1007/s10796-025-10671-6. §32.7
  25. Chakroun, K., Mathar, D., Wiehler, A., Ganzer, F., and Peters, J. (2020). Dopaminergic modulation of the exploration/exploitation trade-off in human decision-making. eLife. §39.6
  26. Chaloner, K., and Verdinelli, I. (1995). Bayesian Experimental Design: A Review. Statistical Science. §6.4 Ch. 6 §15.8 Ch. 15
  27. Chan, R. (2023). Transformative Experience. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. non-peer-reviewed §41.1
  28. Chan, L., Liao, Y.-C., Mo, G. B., Dudley, J. J., Cheng, C.-L., Kristensson, P. O., and Oulasvirta, A. (2022). Investigating Positive and Negative Qualities of Human-in-the-Loop Optimization for Designing Interaction Techniques. CHI 2022. §19.7 §26.4 §31.7 §31.8 §32.1 §32.2 §32.6 §32.9 §32.10 §32.11 Ch. 32
  29. Chaney, A. J. B., Stewart, B. M., and Engelhardt, B. E. (2018). How algorithmic confounding in recommendation systems increases homogeneity and decreases utility. Proceedings of the 12th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems. §36.4 §42.2
  30. Chang, R. (2002). The Possibility of Parity. Ethics. §41.1
  31. Chang, R. (2017). Hard Choices. Journal of the American Philosophical Association. §41.1
  32. Chang, R. (2024). What’s so Hard about Hard Choices? Erasmus Journal for Philosophy and Economics. doi:10.23941/ejpe.v17i1.872. §41.1 Ch. 41 §45.3
  33. Chang, S., Kim, C.-Y., and Cho, Y. S. (2017). Sequential effects in preference decision: Prior preference assimilates current preference. PLOS ONE. §16.1 §25.5 §37.3
  34. Chang, M.-C., Amsler, M., Sutherland, D. R., Ament, S., Gann, K. R., Zhou, L., … Thompson, M. O. (2026). Autonomous Materials Exploration by Integrating Automated Phase Identification and AI-Assisted Human Reasoning. arXiv. preprint §36.7
  35. Chapman, C., and Callegaro, M. (2022). Kano Analysis: A Critical Survey Science Review. Sawtooth Software Conference Proceedings (practitioner conference, not peer-reviewed). working paper §44.1
  36. Chapman, J., Dean, M., Ortoleva, P., Snowberg, E., and Camerer, C. (2023). Willingness to Accept, Willingness to Pay, and Loss Aversion. National Bureau of Economic Research. working paper §40.1
  37. Charnov, E. L. (1976). Optimal foraging, the marginal value theorem. Theoretical Population Biology. §43.1
  38. Chasnov, B. J., Ratliff, L. J., and Burden, S. A. (2025). Human adaptation to adaptive machines converges to game-theoretic equilibria. Scientific Reports. §39.7
  39. Chau, S. L., González, J., and Sejdinovic, D. (2022). Learning Inconsistent Preferences with Gaussian Processes. International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics. §18.4 §21.1 §27.2 §29.8 §43.3
  40. Chawla, A., Thompson, W. H. W., and Young, J.-G. (2026). Multiple latent orderings better predict language model preferences. arXiv. preprint §35.2
  41. Chen, B., and Frazier, P. I. (2017). Dueling Bandits with Weak Regret. International Conference on Machine Learning. §29.1
  42. Chen, M. K., and Risen, J. L. (2010). How choice affects and reflects preferences: Revisiting the free-choice paradigm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. §37.2 Ch. 37
  43. Chen, Y., Huang, A., Wang, Z., Antonoglou, I., Schrittwieser, J., Silver, D., and de Freitas, N. (2018). Bayesian Optimization in AlphaGo. preprint §15.1 §15.2
  44. Chen, X., Zhong, H., Yang, Z., Wang, Z., and Wang, L. (2022). Human-in-the-loop: Provably Efficient Preference-based Reinforcement Learning with General Function Approximation. International Conference on Machine Learning. §29.1
  45. Chen, A., Malladi, S., Zhang, L. H., Chen, X., Zhang, Q., Ranganath, R., and Cho, K. (2024). Preference Learning Algorithms Do Not Learn Preference Rankings. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. doi:10.52202/079017-3234. §35.4
  46. Chen, M., Chen, Y., Sun, W., and Zhang, X. (2025a). Avoiding scaling in RLHF through Preference-based Exploration. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 38 (NeurIPS 2025). doi:10.52202/085713-5485. §35.3
  47. Chen, M., Liu, T. X., Shan, Y., Wang, S., Zhong, S., and Zhou, Y. (2025b). How General Are Measures of Choice Consistency? Evidence from Experimental and Scanner Data. arXiv. preprint §40.2
  48. Chen, D., Chen, Y., Rege, A., and Vinayak, R. K. (2025c). PAL: Pluralistic Alignment Framework for Learning from Heterogeneous Preferences. ICLR 2025. §35.6
  49. Chen, E., Truong, S. T., Dullerud, N., Koyejo, S., and Guestrin, C. (2026). Interactive Multi-Objective Probabilistic Preference Learning with Soft and Hard Bounds. Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence. §28.7
  50. Cheng, M., Novoseller, E., Tucker, M., Cheng, R., Yue, Y., and Burdick, J. (2020). Preference-Based Bayesian Optimization in High Dimensions with Human Feedback. SCMLS 2020 Workshop. workshop paper §28.8
  51. Cheng, J., Xiong, G., Dai, X., Miao, Q., Lv, Y., and Wang, F.-Y. (2024). RIME: Robust Preference-based Reinforcement Learning with Noisy Preferences. ICML 2024. §36.1
  52. Cheung, V. K., Harrison, P. M., Meyer, L., Pearce, M. T., Haynes, J.-D., and Koelsch, S. (2019). Uncertainty and Surprise Jointly Predict Musical Pleasure and Amygdala, Hippocampus, and Auditory Cortex Activity. Current Biology. §44.6
  53. Chiang, W.-L., Zheng, L., Sheng, Y., Angelopoulos, A. N., Li, T., Li, D., … Stoica, I. (2024). Chatbot Arena: An Open Platform for Evaluating LLMs by Human Preference. ICML 2024. §35.3
  54. Chiang, C.-K., Ishida, T., and Sugiyama, M. (2025). LLM Routing with Dueling Feedback. arXiv (not accepted at ICLR 2026). preprint §35.3
  55. Chichilnisky, G. (1980). Social choice and the topology of spaces of preferences. Advances in Mathematics. §40.7
  56. Chidambaram, K., Seetharaman, K. V., and Syrgkanis, V. (2026). Direct Preference Optimization with Unobserved Preference Heterogeneity: The Necessity of Ternary Preferences. International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics. §20.5 §29.9 §35.4 §45.1 §46.4
  57. Childress, C., Baumann, S., Rawlings, C., and Nault, J.-F. (2021). Genres, Objects, and the Contemporary Expression of Higher-Status Tastes. Sociological Science. §42.1
  58. Chiu, C.-H., Koyama, Y., Lai, Y.-C., Igarashi, T., and Yue, Y. (2020). Human-in-the-loop differential subspace search in high-dimensional latent space. ACM Transactions on Graphics. doi:10.1145/3386569.3392409. §32.1
  59. Chmiel, A., and Schubert, E. (2017). Back to the inverted-U for music preference: A review of the literature. Psychology of Music. §44.6
  60. Choi, H., Jung, S., Ahn, H., and Moon, T. (2024). Listwise Reward Estimation for Offline Preference-based Reinforcement Learning. ICML 2024. §36.1
  61. Choi, D., Son, K., Yu, J., Jung, H., and Kim, J. (2026). IdeaBlocks: Expressing and Reusing Divergent Intents for Graphic Design Exploration using Generative AI. Proceedings of the 2026 Designing Interactive Systems Conference. doi:10.1145/3800645.3813005. §32.9
  62. Chong, T. L. H., Shen, I.-C., Sato, I., and Igarashi, T. (2021). Interactive Optimization of Generative Image Modelling using Sequential Subspace Search and Content-based Guidance. Computer Graphics Forum. doi:10.1111/cgf.14188. §20.6 §25.1 §25.4 §32.1 §32.4
  63. Choung, O.-H., Vianello, R., Segler, M., Stiefl, N., and Jiménez-Luna, J. (2023). Extracting medicinal chemistry intuition via preference machine learning. Nature Communications. doi:10.1038/s41467-023-42242-1. §34.2 §34.6 Ch. 34 §45.1
  64. Chowdhury, S. R., and Gopalan, A. (2017). On Kernelized Multi-armed Bandits. International Conference on Machine Learning. §10.2 §10.5 §12.5 §13.4 Ch. 13 §21.3 §21.4 §29.4
  65. Chowdhury, S. R., Zhou, X., and Natarajan, N. (2024). Differentially Private Reward Estimation with Preference Feedback. International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics. §43.8 Ch. 43
  66. Christakis, N. A., and Fowler, J. H. (2007). The Spread of Obesity in a Large Social Network over 32 Years. New England Journal of Medicine. §42.2
  67. Christakopoulou, K., Radlinski, F., and Hofmann, K. (2016). Towards Conversational Recommender Systems. Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. §36.4
  68. Christensen, R. H. B., Lee, H.-S., and Brockhoff, P. B. (2012). Estimation of the Thurstonian Model for the 2-AC Protocol. Food Quality and Preference. §44.5 Ch. 44
  69. Christiano, P., Leike, J., Brown, T. B., Martic, M., Legg, S., and Amodei, D. (2017). Deep reinforcement learning from human preferences. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. §35.1 §36.1
  70. Chu, W., and Ghahramani, Z. (2005). Preference learning with Gaussian processes. Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on Machine learning - ICML '05. §5.7 §16.3 §17.2 Ch. 18 §18.1 §18.2 §18.3 Ch. 18 §19.2 Ch. 19 §21.1 §26.1 §26.8 Ch. 26 Ch. 27 §27.1 Ch. C
  71. Ciomek, K., Kadziński, M., and Tervonen, T. (2017). Heuristics for prioritizing pair-wise elicitation questions with additive multi-attribute value models. Omega. §40.10
  72. Clark, C. E. (1961). The Greatest of a Finite Set of Random Variables. Operations Research. §12.6 §19.4 §B.5 Ch. B
  73. Clarke, E. H. (1971). Multipart pricing of public goods. Public Choice. §40.7
  74. Clarke, C. L. A., and Dietz, L. (2024). LLM-based relevance assessment still can't replace human relevance assessment. arXiv. preprint §42.4
  75. Clarke, C. L. A., Vtyurina, A., and Smucker, M. D. (2021). Assessing Top- Preferences. ACM Transactions on Information Systems. §16.1 §42.4 Ch. 42
  76. Clinton-Lisell, V., and Litzinger, C. (2024). Is it really a neuromyth? A meta-analysis of the learning styles matching hypothesis. Frontiers in Psychology. §42.4
  77. Clites, T. R., Shepherd, M. K., Ingraham, K. A., Wontorcik, L., and Rouse, E. J. (2021). Understanding patient preference in prosthetic ankle stiffness. Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation. §24.5 §39.7
  78. Coburn, A., Vartanian, O., Kenett, Y. N., Nadal, M., Hartung, F., Hayn-Leichsenring, G., … Chatterjee, A. (2020). Psychological and neural responses to architectural interiors. Cortex. §38.11 §44.2
  79. Cogitate Consortium, Ferrante, O., Gorska-Klimowska, U., Henin, S., Hirschhorn, R., Khalaf, A., … Melloni, L. (2025). Adversarial testing of global neuronal workspace and integrated information theories of consciousness. Nature. §41.6
  80. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. §37.1
  81. Colella, F., Daee, P., Jokinen, J., Oulasvirta, A., and Kaski, S. (2020). Human Strategic Steering Improves Performance of Interactive Optimization. UMAP 2020. §31.7 §31.8 §32.7
  82. Colley, M., Jansen, P., Keskar, M., and Rukzio, E. (2025). Improving External Communication of Automated Vehicles Using Bayesian Optimization. CHI 2025. §32.1 §32.2
  83. Colley, M., Jansen, P., Krauss, S., and Rukzio, E. (2026). Multi-Session User Experience Assessments of Computationally Optimized Automated Vehicle Functionality Visualizations. Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications. doi:10.1145/3828157.3828785. §32.1 §32.8
  84. Conen, K. E., and Padoa-Schioppa, C. (2019). Partial Adaptation to the Value Range in the Macaque Orbitofrontal Cortex. The Journal of Neuroscience. §39.1
  85. Corrente, S., Greco, S., Kadziński, M., and Słowiński, R. (2013). Robust ordinal regression in preference learning and ranking. Machine Learning. §40.10
  86. Cortes, C., and Vapnik, V. (1995). Support-Vector Networks. Machine Learning. §22.1
  87. Cosner, R., Tucker, M., Taylor, A., Li, K., Molnár, T., Ubelacker, W., … Ames, A. (2022). Safety-Aware Preference-Based Learning for Safety-Critical Control. Learning for Dynamics and Control Conference. §28.7 §33.6 §33.7
  88. Costa-Gomes, M. A., Cueva, C., Gerasimou, G., and Tejišcák, M. (2022). Choice, deferral, and consistency. Quantitative Economics. §40.2 §40.14 §45.3
  89. Coste, T., Anwar, U., Kirk, R., and Krueger, D. (2024). Reward Model Ensembles Help Mitigate Overoptimization. International Conference on Learning Representations. §35.1 §35.6
  90. Costello, T. H., Pennycook, G., and Rand, D. G. (2024). Durably reducing conspiracy beliefs through dialogues with AI. Science. §42.2
  91. Coutinho, J. P., Castillo, I., and Reis, M. S. (2024). Human-in-the-loop controller tuning using Preferential Bayesian Optimization. IFAC-PapersOnLine. doi:10.1016/j.ifacol.2024.08.306. §33.6
  92. Coutinho, J. P. L., Peng, Y., Rendall, R., Rizzo, C., Ma, K., Chin, S.-T., Castillo, I., and Reis, M. S. (2025). Accelerated controller tuning using human feedback and Multi-Task Preferential Bayesian Optimization. 2025 American Control Conference (ACC). §28.7
  93. Coutinho, J. P., Peng, Y., Rendall, R., Ma, K., Chin, S.-T., Castillo, I., and Reis, M. S. (2026). Efficient human-in-the-loop MPC tuning with multi-task preferential Bayesian optimization. Control Engineering Practice. §28.7 §33.6
  94. Cover, T. M., and Thomas, J. A. (2006). Elements of Information Theory. Wiley. §4.1 §6.1 §6.3 Ch. 6 §10.5 §20.4
  95. Cowen-Rivers, A. I., Lyu, W., Tutunov, R., Wang, Z., Grosnit, A., Griffiths, R. R., … Bou-Ammar, H. (2022). HEBO: An Empirical Study of Assumptions in Bayesian Optimisation. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research. §14.1 §14.8
  96. Cox, R. T. (1946). Probability, Frequency and Reasonable Expectation. American Journal of Physics. §2.1 Ch. 2
  97. Crilly, N. (2021a). The Evolution of “Co-evolution” (Part I): Problem Solving, Problem Finding, and Their Interaction in Design and Other Creative Practices. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation. §44.1
  98. Crilly, N. (2021b). The Evolution of “Co-evolution” (Part II): The Biological Analogy, Different Kinds of Co-evolution, and Proposals for Conceptual Expansion. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation. §44.1
  99. Crockett, M. J., Clark, L., Tabibnia, G., Lieberman, M. D., and Robbins, T. W. (2008). Serotonin Modulates Behavioral Reactions to Unfairness. Science. §44.7
  100. Crockett, M. J., Clark, L., Hauser, M. D., and Robbins, T. W. (2010). Serotonin selectively influences moral judgment and behavior through effects on harm aversion. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. §44.7
  101. Csomay-Shanklin, N., Tucker, M., Dai, M., Reher, J., and Ames, A. D. (2022). Learning Controller Gains on Bipedal Walking Robots via User Preferences. ICRA 2022. §33.6
  102. Cully, A., Clune, J., Tarapore, D., and Mouret, J.-B. (2015). Robots That Can Adapt like Animals. Nature. §15.4
  103. CyberAgent AI Lab (2023). preferentialBO. GitHub. software §31.1 §31.3 §31.6

D

  1. Da Costa, N., Pförtner, M., Da Costa, L., and Hennig, P. (2026). Sample Path Regularity of Gaussian Processes from the Covariance Kernel. Analysis and Applications. §10.6 Ch. 10
  2. Dang, J., Barker, P., Baumert, A., Bentvelzen, M., Berkman, E., Buchholz, N., … Zinkernagel, A. (2021). A Multilab Replication of the Ego Depletion Effect. Social Psychological and Personality Science. §37.2 §37.6
  3. Dang, T., Pham, L.-H., Truong, S. T., Glenn, A., Nguyen, W., Pham, E. A., … Luong, T. (2025). Preferential Multi-Objective Bayesian Optimization for Drug Discovery. ICLR 2025 Workshop. workshop paper §34.2
  4. Danz, D., Vesterlund, L., and Wilson, A. J. (2022). Belief Elicitation and Behavioral Incentive Compatibility. American Economic Review. §40.6
  5. Danziger, S., Levav, J., and Avnaim-Pesso, L. (2011). Extraneous factors in judicial decisions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. §37.2
  6. Dao, L. A., Maccarini, M., Nicora, M. L., Falerni, M. M., Mondellini, M., Veerappan, P., … Roveda, L. (2025). Experience in Engineering Complex Systems: Active Preference Learning With Multiple Outcomes and Certainty Levels. IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems. §27.2
  7. Das, N., Chakraborty, S., Pacchiano, A., and Chowdhury, S. R. (2025). Active Preference Optimization for Sample Efficient RLHF. Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases. Research Track. doi:10.1007/978-3-032-06096-9_6. §35.3
  8. Daulton, S., Balandat, M., and Bakshy, E. (2020). Differentiable Expected Hypervolume Improvement for Parallel Multi-Objective Bayesian Optimization. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33 (NeurIPS 2020). §14.5
  9. Daulton, S., Balandat, M., and Bakshy, E. (2021). Parallel Bayesian Optimization of Multiple Noisy Objectives with Expected Hypervolume Improvement. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 34 (NeurIPS 2021). §14.5
  10. Day, B., Bateman, I. J., Carson, R. T., Dupont, D., Louviere, J. J., Morimoto, S., Scarpa, R., and Wang, P. (2012). Ordering effects and choice set awareness in repeat-response stated preference studies. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. §40.9
  11. De Peuter, S., Zhu, S., Guo, Y., Howes, A., and Kaski, S. (2024). Preference Learning of Latent Decision Utilities with a Human-like Model of Preferential Choice. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. §29.9
  12. de Vries, W., van Kampen, J., and Salazar, M. (2024). A Human-optimized Model Predictive Control Scheme and Extremum Seeking Parameter Estimator for Slip Control of Electric Race Cars. arXiv. preprint §34.1
  13. de Wit, S., Kindt, M., Knot, S. L., Verhoeven, A. A. C., Robbins, T. W., Gasull-Camos, J., … Gillan, C. M. (2018). Shifting the balance between goals and habits: Five failures in experimental habit induction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. §38.2
  14. De Witte, S., Taets, J., Retzler, A., Crevecoeur, G., and Lefebvre, T. (2025). How to Capture Human Preference: Commissioning of a Robotic Use-Case via Preferential Bayesian Optimisation. arXiv. preprint §33.6 §33.7 Ch. 33 §45.1
  15. Dean, S., and Morgenstern, J. (2022). Preference Dynamics Under Personalized Recommendations. EC 2022. §36.4 §42.2 Ch. 42 §45.2 §46.8 Ch. 46 Ch. 47
  16. Dean, M., and Neligh, N. (2023). Experimental Tests of Rational Inattention. Journal of Political Economy. §40.5 §40.14
  17. Debreu, G. (1964). Continuity Properties of Paretian Utility. International Economic Review. §43.4
  18. Debreu, G. (1983). Representation of a Preference Ordering by a Numerical Function. Mathematical Economics: Twenty Papers of Gerard Debreu. §40.8
  19. Deci, E. L., and Ryan, R. M. (2000). The "What" and "Why" of Goal Pursuits: Human Needs and the Self-Determination of Behavior. Psychological Inquiry. §38.2
  20. Deffuant, G., Neau, D., Amblard, F., and Weisbuch, G. (2000). Mixing beliefs among interacting agents. Advances in Complex Systems. §42.2
  21. Defresne, M., Mandi, J., and Guns, T. (2025). Preference Elicitation for Multi-objective Combinatorial Optimization with Active Learning and Maximum Likelihood Estimation. Proceedings of the Thirty-Fourth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. §36.3
  22. Deneault, J. R., Kim, W., Kim, J., Gu, Y., Chang, J., Maruyama, B., Myung, J. I., and Pitt, M. A. (2025). Preferential Bayesian optimization improves the efficiency of printing objects with subjective qualities. Digital Discovery. §23.5 §34.2 §36.7 §36.10 §47.6
  23. Desautels, T., Krause, A., and Burdick, J. W. (2014). Parallelizing Exploration-Exploitation Tradeoffs in Gaussian Process Bandit Optimization. Journal of Machine Learning Research. §14.3
  24. Deslauriers, L., McCarty, L. S., Miller, K., Callaghan, K., and Kestin, G. (2019). Measuring actual learning versus feeling of learning in response to being actively engaged in the classroom. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. §42.4
  25. Di, Q., Jin, T., Wu, Y., Zhao, H., Farnoud, F., and Gu, Q. (2024). Variance-Aware Regret Bounds for Stochastic Contextual Dueling Bandits. International Conference on Learning Representations. §29.1
  26. Di, Q., He, J., and Gu, Q. (2025). Nearly Optimal Algorithms for Contextual Dueling Bandits from Adversarial Feedback. International Conference on Machine Learning. §21.4 §29.1 §29.5 §29.10
  27. Díaz, M. A., Nuzzo, S., Flynn, L., Beckerle, P., Verstraten, T., and De Pauw, K. (2026). User preference in the personalized control of an ankle prosthesis: a case study. Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation. doi:10.1186/s12984-026-01931-w. §24.5 §33.2 §46.9
  28. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, and Dicastery for Culture and Education (2025). Antiqua et nova: Note on the Relationship Between Artificial Intelligence and Human Intelligence. Vatican. non-peer-reviewed §41.9
  29. Dietrich, F., and List, C. (2017). What Matters and How It Matters: A Choice-Theoretic Representation of Moral Theories. Philosophical Review. §41.1
  30. Dijksterhuis, A., Bos, M. W., Nordgren, L. F., and van Baaren, R. B. (2006). On Making the Right Choice: The Deliberation-Without-Attention Effect. Science. §37.2
  31. Ding, Y., Kim, M., Kuindersma, S., and Walsh, C. J. (2018). Human-in-the-Loop Optimization of Hip Assistance with a Soft Exosuit during Walking. Science Robotics. §2.7 §15.1 §15.7 §24.1 §24.2 §24.3 §24.5 Ch. 24 §33.1 §33.3 §47.6
  32. Ding, L., Zhang, J., Clune, J., Spector, L., and Lehman, J. (2024). Quality Diversity through Human Feedback: Towards Open-Ended Diversity-Driven Optimization. ICML 2024. §36.5 §46.9
  33. Dold, M. (2023). Endogenous preferences: a challenge to constitutional political economy’s normative foundation? Constitutional Political Economy. §40.3
  34. Dorr, C., Nebel, J. M., and Zuehl, J. (2023). The case for comparability. Noûs. §41.1 Ch. 41
  35. Dorst, K., and Cross, N. (2001). Creativity in the Design Process: Co-Evolution of Problem-Solution. Design Studies. §44.1
  36. Dosen, A. S., and Ostwald, M. J. (2016). Evidence for prospect-refuge theory: a meta-analysis of the findings of environmental preference research. City, Territory and Architecture. §38.11 §44.2
  37. Doshi, A. R., and Hauser, O. P. (2024). Generative AI enhances individual creativity but reduces the collective diversity of novel content. Science Advances. §42.2
  38. Doumont, C., Fan, D., Maus, N., Gardner, J. R., Moss, H., and Pleiss, G. (2026). We Still Don't Understand High-Dimensional Bayesian Optimization. AISTATS 2026 (best student paper). §5.4 §14.6 §26.5 §26.8 §30.2 Ch. 30 §45.1 §46.3 §46.9
  39. Drago, S., Mussi, M., and Metelli, A. M. (2025). Towards Theoretical Understanding of Sequential Decision Making with Preference Feedback. International Conference on Machine Learning. §29.9
  40. Dragonfly developers (2022). dragonfly-opt 0.1.7. PyPI. software §14.8 §31.1
  41. Driscoll, M. F. (1973). The Reproducing Kernel Hilbert Space Structure of the Sample Paths of a Gaussian Process. Zeitschrift für Wahrscheinlichkeitstheorie und Verwandte Gebiete. §10.2
  42. Du, Z., Zhang, H., Zhu, H., and Zhang, B. (2026). Optimal Design for Active Preference Learning with Biased LLM Judges. arXiv. preprint §35.2
  43. Duan, Z., Rong, G., Li, Z., Chen, B., Zhou, M., and Guo, D. (2026). Mitigating Reward Hacking in RLHF via Bayesian Non-negative Reward Modeling. ICML 2026. §35.6
  44. Dubey, A., Naik, N., Parikh, D., Raskar, R., and Hidalgo, C. A. (2016). Deep Learning the City: Quantifying Urban Perception at a Global Scale. Computer Vision – ECCV 2016. §38.11 §44.3
  45. Dubey, M., De Peuter, S., Wang, W., and Kaski, S. (2026). Active Preference Learning over Latent Preference Archetypes for Many-Objective Bayesian Optimization. arXiv. preprint §20.5 §27.2
  46. Dubois, Y., Li, X., Taori, R., Zhang, T., Gulrajani, I., Ba, J., … Hashimoto, T. B. (2023). AlpacaFarm: A Simulation Framework for Methods that Learn from Human Feedback. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. doi:10.52202/075280-1308. §35.2
  47. Dudík, M., Hofmann, K., Schapire, R. E., Slivkins, A., and Zoghi, M. (2015). Contextual Dueling Bandits. Conference on Learning Theory. §21.1 §29.1
  48. Dudley, J. J., Jacques, J. T., and Kristensson, P. O. (2019). Crowdsourcing Interface Feature Design with Bayesian Optimization. Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. doi:10.1145/3290605.3300482. §32.1 §32.3 §32.9
  49. Dudley, J., Oulasvirta, A., Chan, L., and Kristensson, P. O. (2026). Putting the Human Back in the Loop: A Review of Interactive Bayesian Optimization. ACM Computing Surveys. §32.1
  50. Durante, D. (2019). Conjugate Bayes for probit regression via unified skew-normal distributions. Biometrika. §17.6 Ch. 17 §29.8
  51. Duris, J., Kennedy, D., Hanuka, A., Shtalenkova, J., Edelen, A., Baxevanis, P., … Ratner, D. (2020). Bayesian Optimization of a Free-Electron Laser. Physical Review Letters. §15.1 §15.5
  52. Duvenaud, D., Lloyd, J., Grosse, R., Tenenbaum, J., and Ghahramani, Z. (2013). Structure Discovery in Nonparametric Regression through Compositional Kernel Search. Proceedings of the 30th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML 2013). §9.1 Ch. 9
  53. Dwaracherla, V., Asghari, S. M., Hao, B., and Van Roy, B. (2024). Efficient Exploration for LLMs. ICML 2024. §26.5 §35.3 Ch. 35
  54. Dwork, C., McSherry, F., Nissim, K., and Smith, A. (2006). Calibrating Noise to Sensitivity in Private Data Analysis. Theory of Cryptography (TCC 2006), Lecture Notes in Computer Science. §43.8
  55. Dworkin, G. (1988). The Theory and Practice of Autonomy. Cambridge University Press. §41.2
  56. Dzhafarov, E. N., Zhang, R., and Kujala, J. (2016). Is there contextuality in behavioural and social systems? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences. §43.4

E

  1. Eastwick, P. W., Sparks, J., Finkel, E. J., Meza, E. M., Adamkovič, M., Adu, P., … Coles, N. A. (2025). A worldwide test of the predictive validity of ideal partner preference matching. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. §38.7 Ch. 38
  2. Eichelbeck, M., Voigt, T., and Althoff, M. (2026). Supporting High-Stakes Decision Making Through Interactive Preference Elicitation in the Latent Space. International Conference on Learning Representations. §35.2
  3. Elasky, E., Nakasako, F., and Goyal, N. (2026). Debate Helps Weak Judges Reward Stronger Models. arXiv. preprint §41.7
  4. Elder, G. H. (1998). The Life Course as Developmental Theory. Child Development. §42.1
  5. Ellsberg, D. (1961). Risk, Ambiguity, and the Savage Axioms. The Quarterly Journal of Economics. §40.1
  6. Elster, J. (1983). Sour Grapes: Studies in the Subversion of Rationality. Cambridge University Press. §41.1
  7. Emmerich, M. T. M., Giannakoglou, K. C., and Naujoks, B. (2006). Single- and Multiobjective Evolutionary Optimization Assisted by Gaussian Random Field Metamodels. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation. §14.5
  8. Emmons, S., Oesterheld, C., Conitzer, V., and Russell, S. (2025). Observation Interference in Partially Observable Assistance Games. ICML 2025. §36.2 §36.8
  9. Emukit developers (2026). preferential_batch_bayesian_optimization example. GitHub. software §31.1
  10. Engelen, B. (2019). The Community of Advantage: A Behavioral Economist’s Defence of the Market, Robert Sugden. Oxford University Press, 2018, xxii + 320 pages. Economics and Philosophy. non-peer-reviewed §40.3
  11. Engelmann, D., and Hollard, G. (2010). Reconsidering the Effect of Market Experience on the "Endowment Effect". Econometrica. §40.1 §45.3
  12. Enisman, M., Shpitzer, H., and Kleiman, T. (2021). Choice changes preferences, not merely reflects them: A meta-analysis of the artifact-free free-choice paradigm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. §16.7 §37.2 §37.6 Ch. 37 §43.6 §44.9 §45.2 Ch. 45 §47.1
  13. Enke, B., Graeber, T., and Oprea, R. (2025). Complexity and Time. Journal of the European Economic Association. §40.1
  14. Erarslan, A., Sevilla Salcedo, C., Tanskanen, V., Nisov, A., Päiväkumpu, E., Aisala, H., … Mikkola, P. (2025). Consecutive Preferential Bayesian Optimization. arXiv. preprint §20.4 §27.2 §28.3 §46.2
  15. Eriksson, D., and Jankowiak, M. (2021). High-Dimensional Bayesian Optimization with Sparse Axis-Aligned Subspaces. Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence. §14.6
  16. Eriksson, D., Pearce, M., Gardner, J., Turner, R. D., and Poloczek, M. (2019). Scalable Global Optimization via Local Bayesian Optimization. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 32 (NeurIPS 2019). §12.9 §14.6 Ch. 14 §15.8
  17. Esposito, F., Isola, C., Santos, C., and Farinha, M. (2026). Back to the Future-Proof: Four Reforms for the Better Regulation of Dark Patterns Under the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive and Article 25 of the Digital Services Act. European Journal of Risk Regulation. §42.2
  18. Etteldorf, C. (2019). Court of Justice of the European Union: Users must actively consent to cookies. IRIS Merlin, IRIS 2019-10:1/6. non-peer-reviewed §42.2
  19. Eum, B., Dolbier, S., and Rangel, A. (2023). Peripheral Visual Information Halves Attentional Choice Biases. Psychological Science. §37.3
  20. European Commission (2025). Commission publishes the Guidelines on prohibited artificial intelligence (AI) practices, as defined by the AI Act. Shaping Europe’s digital future. non-peer-reviewed §42.2
  21. European Parliament (2026). Legislative Train Schedule: Digital Fairness Act (updated 20 June 2026). European Parliament. non-peer-reviewed §42.2
  22. European Union (2022a). Digital Services Act, Article 25: Online interface design and organisation (reprint of the text). eu-digital-services-act.com. non-peer-reviewed §42.2
  23. European Union (2022b). Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 on a Single Market for Digital Services (Digital Services Act). Official Journal of the European Union (EUR-Lex). non-peer-reviewed §42.2 §46.8
  24. European Union (2024). Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 (AI Act), Article 5: Prohibited AI Practices (reprint of the text). artificialintelligenceact.eu. non-peer-reviewed §42.2
  25. Evans, C., and Kasirzadeh, A. (2023). User Tampering in Reinforcement Learning Recommender Systems. AIES 2023. §36.2
  26. Evren, Ö., and Ok, E. A. (2011). On the multi-utility representation of preference relations. Journal of Mathematical Economics. §43.4 §45.2

F

  1. Facebook, Inc. (2022). ax-platform 0.2.6. PyPI. software Ch. 26 §31.1
  2. Falk, A., Becker, A., Dohmen, T., Enke, B., Huffman, D., and Sunde, U. (2018). Global Evidence on Economic Preferences*. The Quarterly Journal of Economics. §38.6
  3. Falkner, S., Klein, A., and Hutter, F. (2018). BOHB: Robust and Efficient Hyperparameter Optimization at Scale. International Conference on Machine Learning. §14.7
  4. Fan, D., and Pleiss, G. (2026). Adaptive Candidate Point Thompson Sampling for High-Dimensional Bayesian Optimization. AISTATS 2026. §30.2
  5. Farooqi, H., Zhao, Z., Darrow, D., Lamperski, A., and Netoff, T. I. (2025). An augmented preference-based Bayesian approach for optimizing neuromodulation stimulation parameters using meta learning. Journal of Neural Engineering. §33.5
  6. Faury, L., Abeille, M., Calauzènes, C., and Fercoq, O. (2020). Improved Optimistic Algorithms for Logistic Bandits. International Conference on Machine Learning. §21.4 Ch. 21 §29.5
  7. Fauvel, T. (2021). Human-in-the-loop optimization of retinal prostheses encoders. Sorbonne Université. thesis §31.8 §47.6
  8. Fauvel, T., and Chalk, M. (2021). Efficient Exploration in Binary and Preferential Bayesian Optimization. arXiv. preprint §19.3 §27.2 §28.1 §28.4 §28.5 §28.9 Ch. 28 §31.4 §31.8 Ch. 31
  9. Fauvel, T., and Chalk, M. (2022). Human-in-the-loop optimization of visual prosthetic stimulation. Journal of Neural Engineering. §33.5
  10. Fechner, G. T. (1860). Elemente der Psychophysik. Breitkopf und Härtel. §16.2 Ch. 16 §37.3
  11. Fehr, E., Epper, T., and Senn, J. (2026). Social Preferences and Redistributive Politics. Review of Economics and Statistics. §40.1
  12. Feith, N., and Rueckert, E. (2024). Integrating Human Expertise in Continuous Spaces: A Novel Interactive Bayesian Optimization Framework with Preference Expected Improvement. 2024 21st International Conference on Ubiquitous Robots (UR). doi:10.1109/ur61395.2024.10597501. §33.6
  13. Feng, S., and Fu, J. (2025). Thompson Sampling in Online RLHF with General Function Approximation. arXiv. preprint §35.3
  14. Feng, Q., Kasa, S. R., Kasa, S. K., Yun, H., Teo, C. H., and Bodapati, S. B. (2025). Exposing Privacy Gaps: Membership Inference Attack on Preference Data for LLM Alignment. International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics. §43.8
  15. Fernandes Junior, F. E., Langerak, T., Keränen, M., Shi, D., Alipova, A., and Oulasvirta, A. (2026). Integrating Multi-Source Feedback in Computational Design. Accepted at ACM TiiS. §32.1
  16. Ferreri, L., Mas-Herrero, E., Zatorre, R. J., Ripollés, P., Gomez-Andres, A., Alicart, H., … Rodriguez-Fornells, A. (2019). Dopamine modulates the reward experiences elicited by music. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. §39.6
  17. Feurer, M., and Hutter, F. (2019). Hyperparameter Optimization. Automated Machine Learning: Methods, Systems, Challenges. Ch. 22
  18. Fickinger, A., Zhuang, S., Hadfield-Menell, D., and Russell, S. (2020). Multi-Principal Assistance Games. arXiv. preprint §36.2
  19. Fiedler, M. (1973). Algebraic Connectivity of Graphs. Czechoslovak Mathematical Journal. §18.5 Ch. 18 §43.3
  20. Fischli, R., Franklin, M., Manzini, A., and Gabriel, I. (2026). Agents, Alignment, and the Many Faces of Autonomy. Minds and Machines. §41.2 Ch. 41 §45.5
  21. FiveThirtyEight (2017). candy-power-ranking data. GitHub. non-peer-reviewed §31.5 §31.6
  22. Forrester, A. I. J., Sóbester, A., and Keane, A. J. (2008). Engineering Design via Surrogate Modelling: A Practical Guide. Wiley. §15.5
  23. Forscher, P. S., Lai, C. K., Axt, J. R., Ebersole, C. R., Herman, M., Devine, P. G., and Nosek, B. A. (2019). A meta-analysis of procedures to change implicit measures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. §38.1
  24. Forsgren, M., Frimanson, L., and Juslin, P. (2025a). A Preregistered Falsification Test of the Decision by Sampling Model and Rank-Order Effect. Management Science. §37.3
  25. Forsgren, M., Mandl, B., and Karreskog Rehbinder, G. (2025b). Probabilistic functionalism as a limiting condition for robustness. Scientific Reports. §37.2
  26. Fortuna, A., Lorenzini, M., Leonori, M., Gandarias, J., Balatti, P., Cho, Y., De Momi, E., and Ajoudani, A. (2024). A Personalizable Controller for the Walking Assistive omNi-Directional Exo-Robot (WANDER). ICRA 2024. §33.1
  27. Fosgerau, M., Melo, E., de Palma, A., and Shum, M. (2020). Discrete Choice and Rational Inattention: A General Equivalence Result. International Economic Review. §40.5 §40.14 §45.3
  28. Frankfurt, H. G. (1971). Freedom of the Will and the Concept of a Person. The Journal of Philosophy. §41.2
  29. Franklin, M., Ashton, H., Gorman, R., and Armstrong, S. (2022). Recognising the importance of preference change: A call for a coordinated multidisciplinary research effort in the age of AI. AAAI-22 Workshop on AI for Behavior Change. workshop paper §41.3
  30. Franzen, A., and Mader, S. (2023). The power of social influence: A replication and extension of the Asch experiment. PLOS ONE. §38.1 §38.13
  31. Fraser, I., Balcombe, K., Williams, L., and McSorley, E. (2021). Preference stability in discrete choice experiments. Some evidence using eye-tracking. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics. §38.3 §45.3
  32. Frazier, P. I. (2018). A Tutorial on Bayesian Optimization. arXiv. preprint Ch. 1 §11.1 §11.2 §11.5 Ch. 11 §12.1 §12.3 §12.6 §12.7 §12.9 Ch. 12 §14.6 Ch. 30 §31.8
  33. Frazier, P. I., Powell, W. B., and Dayanik, S. (2008). A Knowledge-Gradient Policy for Sequential Information Collection. SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization. §12.6
  34. Frazier, P., Powell, W., and Dayanik, S. (2009). The Knowledge-Gradient Policy for Correlated Normal Beliefs. INFORMS Journal on Computing. §11.5 §12.6
  35. Frederick, S., Lee, L., and Baskin, E. (2014). The Limits of Attraction. Journal of Marketing Research. §20.1 §37.2 §40.12 §45.2
  36. Frey, V., and van de Rijt, A. (2021). Social Influence Undermines the Wisdom of the Crowd in Sequential Decision Making. Management Science. §43.7
  37. Frey, R., Pedroni, A., Mata, R., Rieskamp, J., and Hertwig, R. (2017). Risk preference shares the psychometric structure of major psychological traits. Science Advances. §38.6 Ch. 38
  38. Friedgut, E., Kalai, G., Keller, N., and Nisan, N. (2011). A Quantitative Version of the Gibbard–Satterthwaite Theorem for Three Alternatives. SIAM Journal on Computing. §43.6
  39. Friedman, J. H. (2001). Greedy Function Approximation: A Gradient Boosting Machine. The Annals of Statistics. §22.4
  40. Friston, K. (2010). The free-energy principle: a unified brain theory? Nature Reviews Neuroscience. §39.5
  41. Friston, K., Rigoli, F., Ognibene, D., Mathys, C., Fitzgerald, T., and Pezzulo, G. (2015). Active inference and epistemic value. Cognitive Neuroscience. §39.5
  42. Frömer, R., Dean Wolf, C. K., and Shenhav, A. (2019). Goal congruency dominates reward value in accounting for behavioral and neural correlates of value-based decision-making. Nature Communications. §38.2 §45.3
  43. Frydman, C., and Jin, L. J. (2022). Efficient Coding and Risky Choice. The Quarterly Journal of Economics. §39.4
  44. Fudenberg, D., Strack, P., and Strzalecki, T. (2018). Speed, Accuracy, and the Optimal Timing of Choices. American Economic Review. §40.4

G

  1. Gabriel, I. (2020). Artificial Intelligence, Values, and Alignment. Minds and Machines. §41.3
  2. Gabry, J., Simpson, D., Vehtari, A., Betancourt, M., and Gelman, A. (2019). Visualization in Bayesian Workflow. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A: Statistics in Society. §5.1
  3. Galak, J., and Redden, J. P. (2018). The Properties and Antecedents of Hedonic Decline. Annual Review of Psychology. §38.4
  4. Galton, F. (1886). Regression Towards Mediocrity in Hereditary Stature. The Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland. §4.5 Ch. 4
  5. Gao, C., Lei, W., He, X., de Rijke, M., and Chua, T.-S. (2021). Advances and Challenges in Conversational Recommender Systems: A Survey. AI Open. §36.4
  6. Gao, L., Schulman, J., and Hilton, J. (2023). Scaling Laws for Reward Model Overoptimization. Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML 2023). §36.1
  7. Gardner, J. R., Kusner, M. J., Xu, Z., Weinberger, K. Q., and Cunningham, J. P. (2014). Bayesian Optimization with Inequality Constraints. Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML 2014). §14.4 §28.7
  8. Gardner, J. R., Pleiss, G., Bindel, D., Weinberger, K. Q., and Wilson, A. G. (2018). GPyTorch: Blackbox Matrix-Matrix Gaussian Process Inference with GPU Acceleration. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 31 (NeurIPS 2018). §3.5
  9. Garnett, R. (2023). Bayesian Optimization. Cambridge University Press. Ch. 1 Ch. 7 Ch. 8 Ch. 9 §11.2 §11.4 §11.5 Ch. 11 §12.1 §12.2 §12.3 §12.7 §12.9 Ch. 12 Ch. 13 Ch. 14 §31.8
  10. Gauthier, G., Hodler, R., Widmer, P., and Zhuravskaya, E. (2026). The political effects of X’s feed algorithm. Nature. doi:10.1038/s41586-026-10098-2. §36.4 §36.10
  11. Gawronski, B., Morrison, M., Phills, C. E., and Galdi, S. (2017). Temporal Stability of Implicit and Explicit Measures: A Longitudinal Analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. §38.1
  12. Ge, L., Halpern, D., Micha, E., Procaccia, A., Shapira, I., Vorobeychik, Y., and Wu, J. (2024). Axioms for AI Alignment from Human Feedback. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 37. §40.7 §40.14 Ch. 40 §45.2
  13. Gelbart, M. A., Snoek, J., and Adams, R. P. (2014). Bayesian Optimization with Unknown Constraints. Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI 2014). §14.4
  14. Gelman, A., Carlin, J. B., Stern, H. S., Dunson, D. B., Vehtari, A., and Rubin, D. B. (2013). Bayesian Data Analysis. Chapman and Hall/CRC. Ch. 5
  15. Genevsky, A., Yoon, C., and Knutson, B. (2017). When Brain Beats Behavior: Neuroforecasting Crowdfunding Outcomes. The Journal of Neuroscience. §39.2
  16. Genevsky, A., Tong, L. C., and Knutson, B. (2025). Neuroforecasting reveals generalizable components of choice. PNAS Nexus. §39.2
  17. Germine, L., Russell, R., Bronstad, P. M., Blokland, G. A., Smoller, J. W., Kwok, H., … Wilmer, J. B. (2015). Individual Aesthetic Preferences for Faces Are Shaped Mostly by Environments, Not Genes. Current Biology. §38.8
  18. Gharat, S., Karamchandani, N., and Nair, J. (2026). Cost-Aware Best-LLM Identification using Dueling Feedback. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. §35.3
  19. Ghosal, G. R., Zurek, M., Brown, D. S., and Dragan, A. D. (2023). The Effect of Modeling Human Rationality Level on Learning Rewards from Multiple Feedback Types. AAAI. §43.5 §44.9 §45.4 §46.2
  20. Gibbard, A. (1973). Manipulation of Voting Schemes: A General Result. Econometrica. §40.7
  21. Gibbard, P., and Sadlier, K. (2025). Optimal adaptive Bayesian design in choice experiments: performance for the population versus individuals. Marketing Letters. §40.9 §46.9
  22. Gigerenzer, G. (2018). The Bias Bias in Behavioral Economics. Review of Behavioral Economics. §37.2
  23. Gigerenzer, G., and Brighton, H. (2009). Homo Heuristicus: Why Biased Minds Make Better Inferences. Topics in Cognitive Science. §37.5
  24. Gigerenzer, G., and Hoffrage, U. (1995). How to Improve Bayesian Reasoning Without Instruction: Frequency Formats. Psychological Review. §2.5 Ch. 2
  25. Gilbert, M. L., Deroche, M. L. D., Jiradejvong, P., Chan Barrett, K., and Limb, C. J. (2022). Cochlear Implant Compression Optimization for Musical Sound Quality in MED-EL Users. Ear & Hearing. §33.4
  26. Ginsbourger, D., Le Riche, R., and Carraro, L. (2010). Kriging Is Well-Suited to Parallelize Optimization. Computational Intelligence in Expensive Optimization Problems. §14.3 §23.3 Ch. 23
  27. Glickman, M., and Sharot, T. (2025). How human–AI feedback loops alter human perceptual, emotional and social judgements. Nature Human Behaviour. doi:10.1038/s41562-024-02077-2. §38.1 §41.8 §42.2 §45.4 §46.4
  28. Glöckner, A. (2016). The irrational hungry judge effect revisited: Simulations reveal that the magnitude of the effect is overestimated. Judgment and Decision Making. §37.2
  29. Gluth, S., Kern, N., Kortmann, M., and Vitali, C. L. (2020). Value-based attention but not divisive normalization influences decisions with multiple alternatives. Nature Human Behaviour. §37.2
  30. Gmeiner, F., Yang, H., Yao, L., Holstein, K., and Martelaro, N. (2023). Exploring Challenges and Opportunities to Support Designers in Learning to Co-create with AI-based Manufacturing Design Tools. CHI 2023. §32.9
  31. Gneezy, U., Goette, L., Sprenger, C., and Zimmermann, F. (2017). The Limits of Expectations-Based Reference Dependence. Journal of the European Economic Association. §40.1
  32. Gold, B. P., Pearce, M. T., Mas-Herrero, E., Dagher, A., and Zatorre, R. J. (2019). Predictability and Uncertainty in the Pleasure of Music: A Reward for Learning? The Journal of Neuroscience. §44.6
  33. Goldin, P. R. (2025). Xunzi. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. non-peer-reviewed §41.9
  34. Golovin, D., Solnik, B., Moitra, S., Kochanski, G., Karro, J., and Sculley, D. (2017). Google Vizier: A Service for Black-Box Optimization. Proceedings of the 23rd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD 2017). §15.1 §15.2 §15.7 Ch. 15
  35. Golub, G. H., and Van Loan, C. F. (2013). Matrix Computations. Johns Hopkins University Press. §3.4 §3.5 Ch. 3 Ch. B
  36. Gölz, P., Haghtalab, N., and Yang, K. (2025). Distortion of AI Alignment: Does Preference Optimization Optimize for Preferences? NeurIPS 2025. §35.4 §35.7 Ch. 35
  37. González, J., Dai, Z., Hennig, P., and Lawrence, N. (2016). Batch Bayesian Optimization via Local Penalization. International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics. §14.3
  38. González, J., Dai, Z., Damianou, A., and Lawrence, N. D. (2017). Preferential Bayesian Optimization. International Conference on Machine Learning. §1.5 Ch. 1 §19.2 §19.3 Ch. 19 §20.3 §21.1 §26.2 Ch. 26 §27.1 §28.1 §28.4 §28.5 §28.9 §29.1 §31.4 §32.1 §35.5 §43.2
  39. Gonzalez Sepulveda, J. M., Johnson, F. R., Reed, S. D., Muiruri, C., Hutyra, C. A., and Mather, I. R. C. (2023). Patient-Preference Diagnostics: Adapting Stated-Preference Methods to Inform Effective Shared Decision Making. Medical Decision Making. §44.7 §44.9
  40. Görtler, J., Kehlbeck, R., and Deussen, O. (2019). A Visual Exploration of Gaussian Processes. Distill. doi:10.23915/distill.00017. Ch. 7 Ch. 8
  41. GPflow developers (2026). gpflow 2.11.1. PyPI. software §31.1
  42. GPyTorch developers (2026). gpytorch 1.15.2. PyPI. software §31.1
  43. Graf, L. K. M., and Landwehr, J. R. (2017). Aesthetic Pleasure versus Aesthetic Interest: The Two Routes to Aesthetic Liking. Frontiers in Psychology. §44.6
  44. Granley, J., Fauvel, T., Chalk, M., and Beyeler, M. (2023). Human-in-the-Loop Optimization for Deep Stimulus Encoding in Visual Prostheses. NeurIPS 2023. §27.3 §28.7 §30.3 §31.7 §31.8 §33.5
  45. Greco, S., Mousseau, V., and Słowiński, R. (2008). Ordinal regression revisited: Multiple criteria ranking using a set of additive value functions. European Journal of Operational Research. §40.10
  46. Grillo, M., Kotłowski, W., and Kadziński, M. (2025). Ordinal regression meets online learning: Interactive preference learning for multiple criteria choice and ranking with provable guarantees. European Journal of Operational Research. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2025.05.045. §40.10
  47. Groves, T. (1973). Incentives in Teams. Econometrica. §40.7
  48. Güçlütürk, Y., Jacobs, R. H. A. H., and Lier, R. v. (2016). Liking versus Complexity: Decomposing the Inverted U-curve. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. §44.6
  49. Guess, A. M., Malhotra, N., Pan, J., Barberá, P., Allcott, H., Brown, T., … Tucker, J. A. (2023). How do social media feed algorithms affect attitudes and behavior in an election campaign? Science. §42.2 Ch. 42
  50. Gupta, R., Hartford, J., and Liu, B. (2025). LLMs for Bayesian Optimization in Scientific Domains: Are We There Yet? Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2025. §23.5 §30.6 §35.2 §35.7

H

  1. Haddenhorst, B., Bengs, V., and Hüllermeier, E. (2021a). Identification of the Generalized Condorcet Winner in Multi-dueling Bandits. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. §29.7
  2. Haddenhorst, B., Bengs, V., Brandt, J., and Hüllermeier, E. (2021b). Testification of Condorcet Winners in dueling bandits. Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence. §29.10
  3. Hadfield-Menell, D., Milli, S., Abbeel, P., Russell, S., and Dragan, A. (2017). Inverse Reward Design. NeurIPS 2017. §36.2
  4. Hafenbrack, A. C., Kinias, Z., and Barsade, S. G. (2014). Debiasing the Mind Through Meditation: Mindfulness and the Sunk-Cost Bias. Psychological Science. §41.9
  5. Hafenbrack, A. C., LaPalme, M. L., and Solal, I. (2022). Mindfulness meditation reduces guilt and prosocial reparation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. §41.9
  6. Hagger, M. S., Chatzisarantis, N. L. D., Alberts, H., Anggono, C. O., Batailler, C., Birt, A. R., … Zwienenberg, M. (2016). A Multilab Preregistered Replication of the Ego-Depletion Effect. Perspectives on Psychological Science. §37.2
  7. Hahami, E., Zimmermann, Y., Zhou, R., and Benarroch Jedlicki, J. (2026). A Unifying Lens on Reward Uncertainty in RLHF. arXiv. preprint §35.4
  8. Hakim, A., Klorfeld, S., Sela, T., Friedman, D., Shabat-Simon, M., and Levy, D. J. (2021). Machines learn neuromarketing: Improving preference prediction from self-reports using multiple EEG measures and machine learning. International Journal of Research in Marketing. §39.2 §39.9
  9. Halim, J., Zhang, X., and O'Mahony, M. (2020). Paired preference tests and placebo placement: 1. Should placebo pairs be placed before or after the target pair? Food Research International. §44.5 §44.9
  10. Halstead, M. E., López‐Ibáñez, M., Farmer, G., and Warren, P. A. (2026). Multiobjective Optimisation for Others: How Anchoring Effects Change Based on Who Guides the Interaction. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis. §40.11 §46.9
  11. Haltia, A., Hyvönen, V., and Kaski, S. (2026). Elicitation-Augmented Bayesian Optimization. arXiv. preprint §28.3 §28.7 §34.2
  12. Handa, K., Gal, Y., Pavlick, E., Goodman, N., Andreas, J., Tamkin, A., and Li, B. Z. (2024). Bayesian Preference Elicitation with Language Models. arXiv. preprint §35.2
  13. Hansen, N., and Ostermeier, A. (2001). Completely Derandomized Self-Adaptation in Evolution Strategies. Evolutionary Computation. §15.8 §24.2
  14. Hansson, S. O., and Grüne-Yanoff, T. (2022). Preferences. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. non-peer-reviewed §41.1 §41.6 Ch. 41
  15. Hardt, M., and Mendler-Dünner, C. (2025). Performative Prediction: Past and Future. Statistical Science. §42.2 Ch. 42 §45.2
  16. Harhen, N. C., and Bornstein, A. M. (2023). Overharvesting in human patch foraging reflects rational structure learning and adaptive planning. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. §43.1
  17. Harsanyi, J. C. (1955). Cardinal Welfare, Individualistic Ethics, and Interpersonal Comparisons of Utility. Journal of Political Economy. §40.7
  18. Hatgis-Kessell, S., Knox, W. B., Booth, S., and Stone, P. (2025). Influencing Humans to Conform to Preference Models for RLHF. Transactions on Machine Learning Research. §36.1
  19. Hauser, J. R., and Toubia, O. (2005). The Impact of Utility Balance and Endogeneity in Conjoint Analysis. Marketing Science. §40.9 Ch. 40 §46.9
  20. Hausman, D. M. (2024). Subjective total comparative evaluations. Economics & Philosophy. §41.1
  21. Hawkins-Hooker, A., Duckworth, P., and Bent, O. (2023). Preferential Bayesian Optimisation for Protein Design with Ranking-Based Fitness Predictors. NeurIPS 2023 MLSB Workshop. workshop paper §34.2
  22. Hayden, B. Y., and Niv, Y. (2021). The case against economic values in the orbitofrontal cortex (or anywhere else in the brain). Behavioral Neuroscience. §39.1 §39.9
  23. Heckel, R., Shah, N. B., Ramchandran, K., and Wainwright, M. J. (2019). Active ranking from pairwise comparisons and when parametric assumptions do not help. The Annals of Statistics. §16.6 §36.6 §36.10 §43.3 Ch. 43 §45.1
  24. Hejna, I. D. J., and Sadigh, D. (2022). Few-Shot Preference Learning for Human-in-the-Loop RL. Conference on Robot Learning. §36.8
  25. Hejna, J., and Sadigh, D. (2023). Inverse Preference Learning: Preference-based RL without a Reward Function. NeurIPS 2023. §36.1
  26. Hejna, J., Rafailov, R., Sikchi, H., Finn, C., Niekum, S., Knox, W. B., and Sadigh, D. (2024). Contrastive Preference Learning: Learning from Human Feedback without RL. ICLR 2024. §36.1
  27. Helzer, E. G., Fleeson, W., Furr, R. M., Meindl, P., and Barranti, M. (2017). Once a Utilitarian, Consistently a Utilitarian? Examining Principledness in Moral Judgment via the Robustness of Individual Differences. Journal of Personality. §38.5
  28. Hemingway, C. T., DeVore, J. E., and Muth, F. (2024). Economic foraging in a floral marketplace: asymmetrically dominated decoy effects in bumblebees. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. §43.1
  29. Hendrickx, J. M., Olshevsky, A., and Saligrama, V. (2019). Graph Resistance and Learning from Pairwise Comparisons. ICML. §18.5 Ch. 18 §43.3 Ch. 43 §44.9 §45.2 §46.4
  30. Hennig, P., and Schuler, C. J. (2012). Entropy Search for Information-Efficient Global Optimization. Journal of Machine Learning Research. §6.4 §11.5 §12.7 Ch. 12
  31. Hennion, A. (2001). Music Lovers: Taste as Performance. Theory, Culture & Society. §42.1
  32. Hennion, A. (2007). Those Things That Hold Us Together: Taste and Sociology. Cultural Sociology. §42.1
  33. Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., and Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences. §42.1
  34. Herin, M., Perny, P., and Sokolovska, N. (2024). Noise-Tolerant Active Preference Learning for Multicriteria Choice Problems. Algorithmic Decision Theory. §36.3
  35. Hernández-Lobato, J. M., Hoffman, M. W., and Ghahramani, Z. (2014). Predictive Entropy Search for Efficient Global Optimization of Black-box Functions. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 27 (NeurIPS 2014). §6.4 §11.5 §12.7 Ch. 12
  36. Hervés‐Beloso, C., and del Valle‐Inclán Cruces, H. (2019). Continuous preference orderings representable by utility functions. Journal of Economic Surveys. §43.4 Ch. 43
  37. Higham, N. J. (2002). Computing the Nearest Correlation Matrix: A Problem from Finance. IMA Journal of Numerical Analysis. §3.3 Ch. 3
  38. Hiranaka, A., Hwang, M., Lee, S., Wang, C., Fei-Fei, L., Wu, J., and Zhang, R. (2023). Primitive Skill-based Robot Learning from Human Evaluative Feedback. IROS 2023. §34.5
  39. Hoeffding, W. (1963). Probability Inequalities for Sums of Bounded Random Variables. Journal of the American Statistical Association. §13.2
  40. Hoeffler, S., and Ariely, D. (1999). Constructing Stable Preferences: A Look Into Dimensions of Experience and Their Impact on Preference Stability. Journal of Consumer Psychology. §38.3
  41. Hoeffler, S., Ariely, D., and West, P. (2006). Path dependent preferences: The role of early experience and biased search in preference development. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. §38.3
  42. Hollingworth, H. L. (1910). The Central Tendency of Judgment. The Journal of Philosophy, Psychology and Scientific Methods. §16.1
  43. Hong, J., Bhatia, K., and Dragan, A. (2023). On the Sensitivity of Reward Inference to Misspecified Human Models. ICLR 2023. §36.1 §36.10 Ch. 36
  44. Hopkins, M., Reeber, E., Forman, G., and Suermondt, J. (1999). Spambase. UCI Machine Learning Repository, data set, CC BY 4.0. doi:10.24432/C53G6X. non-peer-reviewed §22.4 Ch. 22
  45. Hopkins, M., Kane, D., Lovett, S., and Mahajan, G. (2020). Noise-tolerant, Reliable Active Classification with Comparison Queries. Conference on Learning Theory. §36.3
  46. Hosseinmardi, H., Ghasemian, A., Rivera-Lanas, M., Horta Ribeiro, M., West, R., and Watts, D. J. (2024). Causally estimating the effect of YouTube’s recommender system using counterfactual bots. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. §36.4 §42.2
  47. Houlsby, N., Huszár, F., Ghahramani, Z., and Lengyel, M. (2011). Bayesian Active Learning for Classification and Preference Learning. arXiv. preprint §6.4 §16.6 Ch. 16 §18.1 Ch. 18 §27.1 §28.1 §28.5 §28.8
  48. Houlsby, N., Huszár, F., Ghahramani, Z., and Hernández-lobato, J. (2012). Collaborative Gaussian Processes for Preference Learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. §20.5 Ch. 20 §27.2
  49. Hsu, C.-W., Chang, C.-C., and Lin, C.-J. (2003). A Practical Guide to Support Vector Classification. Department of Computer Science, National Taiwan University. non-peer-reviewed §22.1 §22.5 Ch. 22
  50. Hu, X., Li, J., Zhan, X., Jia, Q.-S., and Zhang, Y.-Q. (2024). Query-Policy Misalignment in Preference-Based Reinforcement Learning. ICLR 2024. §36.1
  51. Huawei Noah's Ark Lab (2024). HEBO 0.3.6. PyPI. software §14.8 §31.1
  52. Huber, J., Payne, J. W., and Puto, C. (1982). Adding Asymmetrically Dominated Alternatives: Violations of Regularity and the Similarity Hypothesis. Journal of Consumer Research. §20.1 §37.2
  53. Huber, F., Rojas Gonzalez, S., and Astudillo, R. (2025). Bayesian Preference Elicitation for Decision Support in Multi‐Objective Optimization. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis. §28.7 §34.3 §40.10 §44.4
  54. Huszár, F., Ktena, S. I., O’Brien, C., Belli, L., Schlaikjer, A., and Hardt, M. (2022). Algorithmic amplification of politics on Twitter. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. §42.2
  55. Hutter, F., Hoos, H. H., and Leyton-Brown, K. (2011). Sequential Model-Based Optimization for General Algorithm Configuration. Learning and Intelligent Optimization (LION 5). §14.1
  56. Hutter, F., Hoos, H., and Leyton-Brown, K. (2014). An Efficient Approach for Assessing Hyperparameter Importance. International Conference on Machine Learning. §22.4 Ch. 22
  57. Hvarfner, C., Hellsten, E. O., and Nardi, L. (2024). Vanilla Bayesian Optimization Performs Great in High Dimensions. International Conference on Machine Learning. §6.5 §7.5 §9.5 Ch. 9 §12.9 §14.6 Ch. 14 §26.5 §27.5 §30.1 §30.8 Ch. 30 §46.3 §47.2
  58. Hvarfner, C., Eriksson, D., Bakshy, E., and Balandat, M. (2025). Informed Initialization for Bayesian Optimization and Active Learning. NeurIPS 2025. §30.1
  59. Hvarfner, C., Daulton, S., Balandat, M., and Bakshy, E. (2026). Pitfalls and Remedies for Multi-Task Bayesian Optimization. arXiv. preprint §30.7
  60. Hwang, C.-L., and Yoon, K. (1981). Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications, A State-of-the-Art Survey. Springer. §40.10

I

  1. ICML (2023). The Many Facets of Preference-Based Learning. ICML 2023 workshop page. non-peer-reviewed §26.4 §31.8
  2. Ignatenko, T., Kondrashov, K., Cox, M., and de Vries, B. (2025). On preference learning based on sequential Bayesian optimization with pairwise comparison. Artificial Intelligence. §28.2 §28.7 §33.4
  3. Imai, T., Rutter, T. A., and Camerer, C. F. (2021). Meta-Analysis of Present-Bias Estimation using Convex Time Budgets. The Economic Journal. §40.1
  4. Infante, G., Lecouteux, G., and Sugden, R. (2016). Preference purification and the inner rational agent: a critique of the conventional wisdom of behavioural welfare economics. Journal of Economic Methodology. §40.3
  5. Ingraham, K. A., Remy, C. D., and Rouse, E. J. (2022). The role of user preference in the customized control of robotic exoskeletons. Science Robotics. §24.2 §24.3 §24.4 §24.5 Ch. 24 §33.3 §33.7 Ch. 33 §34.4 §39.7 Ch. 39 §46.9
  6. Ingraham, K. A., Tucker, M., Ames, A. D., Rouse, E. J., and Shepherd, M. K. (2023). Leveraging user preference in the design and evaluation of lower-limb exoskeletons and prostheses. Current Opinion in Biomedical Engineering. §33.1
  7. Institute for Data Science in Mechanical Engineering, RWTH Aachen University (2026). crashpbo. GitHub. software §31.1
  8. Ip, J. H. S., Chakrabarty, A., Mesbah, A., and Romeres, D. (2025). User Preference Meets Pareto-Optimality in Multi-Objective Bayesian Optimization. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. §28.7
  9. Ishibashi, H., Karasuyama, M., Takeuchi, I., and Hino, H. (2023). A stopping criterion for Bayesian optimization by the gap of expected minimum simple regrets. International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics. §14.7 §30.7
  10. Iwai, K., Kumagae, Y., Koyama, Y., Hamasaki, M., and Goto, M. (2025). Constrained Preferential Bayesian Optimization and Its Application in Banner Ad Design. Proceedings of the Thirty-Fourth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. §25.1 §25.4 Ch. 25 §28.7 §28.8 §31.8 §32.1 §32.5 §32.6 §32.9 §32.10
  11. Iwazaki, S., and Takeno, S. (2025). Near-Optimal Algorithm for Non-Stationary Kernelized Bandits. International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics. §29.7 §29.10
  12. Iyengar, S. S., and Lepper, M. R. (2000). When choice is demotivating: Can one desire too much of a good thing? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. §38.3
  13. Izuma, K., and Murayama, K. (2013). Choice-Induced Preference Change in the Free-Choice Paradigm: A Critical Methodological Review. Frontiers in Psychology. §37.2

J

  1. Jachimowicz, J. M., Duncan, S., Weber, E. U., and Johnson, E. J. (2019). When and why defaults influence decisions: a meta-analysis of default effects. Behavioural Public Policy. §40.1
  2. Jamieson, K., Katariya, S., Deshpande, A., and Nowak, R. (2015). Sparse Dueling Bandits. Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics. §21.1
  3. Jannach, D., Manzoor, A., Cai, W., and Chen, L. (2021). A Survey on Conversational Recommender Systems. ACM Computing Surveys. §36.4
  4. Jansen, P. (2025). Human-in-the-Loop Optimization for Inclusive Design: Balancing Automation and Designer Expertise. CHI 2025 Workshop Access InContext. workshop paper §32.9
  5. Jansen, P., Colley, M., Krauß, S., Hirschle, D., and Rukzio, E. (2025). OptiCarVis: Improving Automated Vehicle Functionality Visualizations Using Bayesian Optimization to Enhance User Experience. CHI 2025. §32.1 §32.7
  6. Jansson, D. G., and Smith, S. M. (1991). Design Fixation. Design Studies. §44.1
  7. Janwani, N., Lerner, M. T., Young, A. J., and Tucker, M. (2026). Multi-Objective Human-in-the-Loop Bayesian Optimization of a Lower-Limb Exoskeleton. arXiv. preprint §33.1
  8. Jaynes, E. T. (2003). Probability Theory: The Logic of Science. Cambridge University Press. §2.1 Ch. 2
  9. Ji, K., He, J., and Gu, Q. (2024). Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback with Active Queries. TMLR. §35.3
  10. Jiang, X., Lim, L.-H., Yao, Y., and Ye, Y. (2011). Statistical ranking and combinatorial Hodge theory. Mathematical Programming. §43.3 Ch. 43 §44.9 §45.2
  11. Joachims, T., Swaminathan, A., and Schnabel, T. (2017). Unbiased Learning-to-Rank with Biased Feedback. WSDM 2017. §36.6 §36.10 Ch. 36
  12. Joerges, B. (1999). Do Politics Have Artefacts? Social Studies of Science. §42.2
  13. Johansson, P., Hall, L., Tärning, B., Sikström, S., and Chater, N. (2014). Choice Blindness and Preference Change: You Will Like This Paper Better If You (Believe You) Chose to Read It! Journal of Behavioral Decision Making. §41.4
  14. Johnson, E. J., and Goldstein, D. (2003). Do Defaults Save Lives? Science. §41.2
  15. Johnson, S. G. B., Bilovich, A., and Tuckett, D. (2023). Conviction Narrative Theory: A theory of choice under radical uncertainty. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. §42.5
  16. Johnston, R. J., Boyle, K. J., Adamowicz, W. (., Bennett, J., Brouwer, R., Cameron, T. A., … Vossler, C. A. (2017). Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies. Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists. §40.9 Ch. 40 §46.4
  17. Johnston, C. M., Vossler, P., Blessenohl, S., and Vayanos, P. (2023). Deploying a Robust Active Preference Elicitation Algorithm on MTurk: Experiment Design, Interface, and Evaluation for COVID-19 Patient Prioritization. EAAMO 2023. §36.3
  18. Jones, D. R. (2001). A Taxonomy of Global Optimization Methods Based on Response Surfaces. Journal of Global Optimization. §12.2 Ch. 12
  19. Jones, D. R., Schonlau, M., and Welch, W. J. (1998). Efficient Global Optimization of Expensive Black-Box Functions. Journal of Global Optimization. §1.3 §11.4 §11.5 Ch. 11 §12.3 Ch. 12 §15.5
  20. Journal of Marketing Research (2024). Expression of Concern: “The Dishonesty of Honest People: A Theory of Self-Concept Maintenance”. Journal of Marketing Research. §38.5

K

  1. Kadner, F., Keller, Y., and Rothkopf, C. A. (2021). AdaptiFont: Increasing Individuals' Reading Speed with a Generative Font Model and Bayesian Optimization. CHI 2021. §32.1 §32.3 §32.5 §32.10
  2. Kahneman, D., and Tversky, A. (1973). On the Psychology of Prediction. Psychological Review. §2.5
  3. Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., and Thaler, R. H. (1990). Experimental Tests of the Endowment Effect and the Coase Theorem. Journal of Political Economy. §40.1
  4. Kahneman, D., Wakker, P. P., and Sarin, R. (1997). Back to Bentham? Explorations of Experienced Utility. The Quarterly Journal of Economics. §37.2
  5. Kalimeris, D., Bhagat, S., Kalyanaraman, S., and Weinsberg, U. (2021). Preference Amplification in Recommender Systems. Proceedings of the 27th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining. §36.4
  6. Kalinin, S. V., Liu, Y., Biswas, A., Duscher, G., Pratiush, U., Roccapriore, K., Ziatdinov, M., and Vasudevan, R. (2024). Human-in-the-loop: The future of Machine Learning in Automated Electron Microscopy. Microscopy Today. doi:10.1093/mictod/qaad096. §15.3 §23.5 §36.7
  7. Kamenica, E., and Gentzkow, M. (2011). Bayesian Persuasion. American Economic Review. §40.6
  8. Kamishima, T. (2026). SUSHI Preference Data Sets. kamishima.net. non-peer-reviewed §31.5
  9. Kanagawa, M., Hennig, P., Sejdinovic, D., and Sriperumbudur, B. K. (2018). Gaussian Processes and Kernel Methods: A Review on Connections and Equivalences. arXiv preprint. preprint §8.2 Ch. 8 §10.2 §10.3 §10.6 §10.7 Ch. 10
  10. Kanarik, K. J., Osowiecki, W. T., Lu, Y., Talukder, D., Roschewsky, N., Park, S. N., … Gottscho, R. A. (2023). Human–machine collaboration for improving semiconductor process development. Nature. §15.3 §34.2 §34.6 Ch. 34 §44.4
  11. Kandasamy, K., Schneider, J., and Póczos, B. (2015). High Dimensional Bayesian Optimisation and Bandits via Additive Models. International Conference on Machine Learning. §14.6
  12. Kandasamy, K., Dasarathy, G., Schneider, J., and Póczos, B. (2017). Multi-fidelity Bayesian Optimisation with Continuous Approximations. International Conference on Machine Learning. §14.7
  13. Kandasamy, K., Krishnamurthy, A., Schneider, J., and Póczos, B. (2018). Parallelised Bayesian Optimisation via Thompson Sampling. International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics. §14.3
  14. Kandler, A., and Crema, E. R. (2019). Analysing Cultural Frequency Data: Neutral Theory and Beyond. Handbook of Evolutionary Research in Archaeology. §42.5
  15. Kane, D. M., Lovett, S., Moran, S., and Zhang, J. (2017). Active classification with comparison queries. FOCS 2017. §36.3
  16. Kanwal, M., and Tran, C. (2026). Constructive Alignment: Governing Preference Dynamics in Human-AI Interaction. AAAI-26 Workshop on Machine Ethics. workshop paper §41.2 §45.5 §46.8
  17. Kapoor, S., and Narayanan, A. (2023). No, you still cannot predict hit songs using machine learning. Princeton Reproducibility. non-peer-reviewed §39.2
  18. Karlekar, S., Zheng, C., Saebo, M., Beltran-Velez, N., Yu, S., Bowlan, J., Kucer, M., and Blei, D. (2026). Duel-Evolve: Reward-Free Test-Time Scaling via LLM Self-Preferences. ICLR 2026 RSI Workshop. workshop paper §35.3
  19. Karni, E., and Vierø, M.-L. (2013). “Reverse Bayesianism”: A Choice-Based Theory of Growing Awareness. American Economic Review. §40.8
  20. Karwowski, J., Hayman, O., Bai, X., Kiendlhofer, K., Griffin, C., and Skalse, J. (2024). Goodhart's Law in Reinforcement Learning. ICLR 2024. §36.2
  21. Katkuri, S., Kawada, M., and Wachs, J. (2026). Beyond Pairwise Feedback: Listwise Vision-Language Supervision for Preference-Based Reward Learning. arXiv. preprint §35.6
  22. Kaufmann, E., Korda, N., and Munos, R. (2012). Thompson Sampling: An Asymptotically Optimal Finite-Time Analysis. Algorithmic Learning Theory (ALT 2012). §13.2 §13.3
  23. Kaufmann, T., Metz, Y., Keim, D., and Hüllermeier, E. (2025). ResponseRank: Data-Efficient Reward Modeling through Preference Strength Learning. NeurIPS. §39.3
  24. Kayal (2025). BOHF_code_submission. GitHub. software §31.1
  25. Kayal, A., Vakili, S., Toni, L., Shiu, D.-S., and Bernacchia, A. (2025). Bayesian Optimization from Human Feedback: Near-Optimal Regret Bounds. International Conference on Machine Learning. §21.3 §21.4 §21.5 Ch. 21 §26.5 §27.1 §28.5 §29.3 §29.4 Ch. 29 §30.3 §31.4 §31.8 §35.3 §45.1 §47.2 Ch. 47
  26. Keerthi, S. S., and Lin, C.-J. (2003). Asymptotic Behaviors of Support Vector Machines with Gaussian Kernel. Neural Computation. §22.2 Ch. 22
  27. Keffert, H., and Schweizer, N. (2024). Stochastic Monotonicity and Random Utility Models: The Good and The Ugly. arXiv preprint 2409.00704. preprint §37.4 §46.2
  28. Kellen, D., Singmann, H., and Batchelder, W. H. (2018). Classic-probability accounts of mirrored (quantum-like) order effects in human judgments. Decision. §37.4
  29. Kelly, M. A., Patel, R., Thomas, A., Zhu, Z., Quan, Z., Carlson, T., and Cho, Y. (2026). BOBA: Dynamic Bayesian Optimization through Bayesian Active Inference. arXiv preprint 2609.26021. preprint §39.5
  30. Kenton, Z., Siegel, N. Y., Kramár, J., Brown-Cohen, J., Albanie, S., Bulian, J., … Shah, R. (2024). On scalable oversight with weak LLMs judging strong LLMs. NeurIPS 2024 (link is to the arXiv version). §41.7
  31. Keswani, V., Conitzer, V., Heidari, H., Borg, J. S., and Sinnott-Armstrong, W. (2024). On the Pros and Cons of Active Learning for Moral Preference Elicitation. AIES. §38.5 Ch. 38 §46.4 Ch. 46
  32. Keswani, V., Cousins, C., Nguyen, B., Conitzer, V., Heidari, H., Borg, J. S., and Sinnott-Armstrong, W. (2026). Moral Change or Noise? On Problems of Aligning AI With Temporally Unstable Human Feedback. AAAI. §38.5 §38.13 Ch. 38 §45.1 §46.5 Ch. 47
  33. Kettlewell, N. (2019). Risk preference dynamics around life events. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization. §42.1
  34. Kettlewell, N., Morris, R. W., Ho, N., Cobb-Clark, D. A., Cripps, S., and Glozier, N. (2020). The differential impact of major life events on cognitive and affective wellbeing. SSM - Population Health. §38.4
  35. Khader, S. J. (2011). Adaptive Preferences and Women's Empowerment. Oxford University Press. §41.1
  36. Khan, A., Hughes, J., Valentine, D., Ruis, L., Sachan, K., Radhakrishnan, A., … Perez, E. (2024). Debating with More Persuasive LLMs Leads to More Truthful Answers. International Conference on Machine Learning. §41.7
  37. Khan, F. A., Chakraborty, T., Dietrich, J. P., and Wirth, C. (2025). Efficient Contextual Preferential Bayesian Optimization with Historical Examples. Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference Companion. §28.7
  38. Kim, G., and Kim, E. (2026). Swap-guided Preference Learning for Personalized Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback. ICLR 2026. §35.6
  39. Kim, G., and Sergi, F. (2025). Validation of Dynamic Bayesian Optimization for a Non-Stationary Human-in-the-Loop Optimization Problem. bioRxiv. preprint §33.1
  40. Kim, G., and Sergi, F. (2026). Validation of Dynamic Bayesian Optimization for Human-in-the-Loop Optimization of Exoskeleton Control at User-Driven Walking Speed. bioRxiv. preprint §24.4
  41. Kim, M., Ding, Y., Malcolm, P., Speeckaert, J., Siviy, C. J., Walsh, C. J., and Kuindersma, S. (2017). Human-in-the-Loop Bayesian Optimization of Wearable Device Parameters. PLOS ONE. §15.7
  42. Kim, E., Min, B., Xia, H., and Kim, J. (2026). Elicitive User Interfaces: Designing How Users Shape Generative Interfaces. arXiv. preprint §32.9
  43. Kimeldorf, G. S., and Wahba, G. (1970). A Correspondence Between Bayesian Estimation on Stochastic Processes and Smoothing by Splines. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics. §10.2
  44. Kimeldorf, G., and Wahba, G. (1971). Some Results on Tchebycheffian Spline Functions. Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications. §10.2
  45. Kirk, H. R., Leqi, L., Zeng, F., Davidson, H., Vidgen, B., Summerfield, C., and Hale, S. A. (2026). PRISM-X: Experiments on Personalised Fine-Tuning with Human and Simulated Users. arXiv. preprint §35.2 Ch. 35 §46.7 §47.3 §47.6
  46. Kirschner, J., and Krause, A. (2021). Bias-Robust Bayesian Optimization via Dueling Bandits. International Conference on Machine Learning. §21.3 §21.4 Ch. 21 §26.3 §28.1 §28.8 §29.2 §29.4 Ch. 29 §31.8
  47. Klein, C. (2018). What do predictive coders want? Synthese. §39.5
  48. Klein, G., Calderwood, R., and Clinton-Cirocco, A. (2010). Rapid Decision Making on the Fire Ground: The Original Study Plus a Postscript. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making. §42.4
  49. Klein, A., Falkner, S., Bartels, S., Hennig, P., and Hutter, F. (2017). Fast Bayesian Optimization of Machine Learning Hyperparameters on Large Datasets. Artificial Intelligence and Statistics. §14.7 §22.1 §22.5
  50. Klein, R. A., Vianello, M., Hasselman, F., Adams, B. G., Adams, J. R. B., Alper, S., … Nosek, B. A. (2018). Many Labs 2: Investigating Variation in Replicability Across Samples and Settings. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science. §37.1 Ch. 37
  51. Kleinberg, J., Mullainathan, S., and Raghavan, M. (2023). The Challenge of Understanding What Users Want: Inconsistent Preferences and Engagement Optimization. Management Science. §42.2
  52. Kleine Buening, T., and Saha, A. (2023). ANACONDA: An Improved Dynamic Regret Algorithm for Adaptive Non-Stationary Dueling Bandits. International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics. §29.10
  53. Kleine Buening, T., Gan, J., Mandal, D., and Kwiatkowska, M. (2025). Strategyproof Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback. NeurIPS 2025. §36.2 §36.8
  54. Klenk, M. (2022). (Online) manipulation: sometimes hidden, always careless. Review of Social Economy. §41.2
  55. Knowles, J. (2006). ParEGO: A Hybrid Algorithm with On-line Landscape Approximation for Expensive Multiobjective Optimization Problems. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation. §14.5
  56. Knox, W. B., Hatgis-Kessell, S., Booth, S., Niekum, S., Stone, P., and Allievi, A. (2024). Models of human preference for learning reward functions. TMLR 2024. §36.1 §36.8 §36.10 Ch. 36
  57. Kobalczyk, K., Astorga, N., Liu, T., and van der Schaar, M. (2025). Active Task Disambiguation with LLMs. ICLR 2025. §35.2
  58. Kobalczyk, K., Lin, Z. J., Letham, B., Zhao, Z., Balandat, M., and Bakshy, E. (2026). LILO: Bayesian Optimization with Natural Language Feedback. ICML 2026. §26.5 §28.6 §30.6 §31.4 §31.8 §34.3 §35.2 Ch. 35
  59. Koch, J., Lucero, A., Hegemann, L., and Oulasvirta, A. (2019). May AI? Design Ideation with Cooperative Contextual Bandits. Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. doi:10.1145/3290605.3300863. §32.9
  60. Kocher, M. G., Lahno, A. M., and Trautmann, S. T. (2018). Ambiguity aversion is not universal. European Economic Review. §40.1
  61. Kolmogoroff, A. (1933). Grundbegriffe der Wahrscheinlichkeitsrechnung. Springer. §10.6
  62. Kolpaczki, P., Bengs, V., and Hüllermeier, E. (2022). Non-Stationary Dueling Bandits. arXiv. preprint §29.10
  63. Komiyama, J., Honda, J., Kashima, H., and Nakagawa, H. (2015). Regret Lower Bound and Optimal Algorithm in Dueling Bandit Problem. Conference on Learning Theory. §21.2 §21.5 §29.1 §29.7 §29.11
  64. Komiyama, J., Honda, J., and Nakagawa, H. (2016). Copeland Dueling Bandit Problem: Regret Lower Bound, Optimal Algorithm, and Computationally Efficient Algorithm. Proceedings of the 33rd International Conference on Machine Learning. §21.2
  65. Kontsevich, L. L., and Tyler, C. W. (1999). Bayesian Adaptive Estimation of Psychometric Slope and Threshold. Vision Research. §6.4
  66. Korb, S., Götzendorfer, S. J., Massaccesi, C., Sezen, P., Graf, I., Willeit, M., Eisenegger, C., and Silani, G. (2020). Dopaminergic and opioidergic regulation during anticipation and consumption of social and nonsocial rewards. eLife. §39.6
  67. Korbak, T., Perez, E., and Buckley, C. L. (2022). RL with KL penalties is better viewed as Bayesian inference. Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2022. doi:10.18653/v1/2022.findings-emnlp.77. §35.4
  68. Kőszegi, B., and Rabin, M. (2006). A Model of Reference-Dependent Preferences. The Quarterly Journal of Economics. §40.1
  69. Kouchaki, M., and Smith, I. H. (2014). The Morning Morality Effect. Psychological Science. §38.9
  70. Koyama, Y. (2017). Computational Design Driven by Visual Aesthetic Preference. The University of Tokyo. doi:10.15083/00076184. thesis §31.8
  71. Koyama, Y. (2025a). preference-regressor.hpp. GitHub. software §31.2
  72. Koyama, Y. (2025b). sequential-line-search. GitHub. software §31.1
  73. Koyama, Y., and Goto, M. (2022). BO as Assistant: Using Bayesian Optimization for Asynchronously Generating Design Suggestions. Proceedings of the 35th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. doi:10.1145/3526113.3545664. §20.6 §32.1 §32.9 §41.5
  74. Koyama, Y., and Igarashi, T. (2018). Computational Design with Crowds. Computational Interaction. §16.1 §20.2 §20.5 Ch. 20 §25.1 §25.2 §25.5 Ch. 25 §31.8 §32.1 §32.4 §32.5 §32.9 §32.10 Ch. 32
  75. Koyama, Y., Sato, I., Sakamoto, D., and Igarashi, T. (2017). Sequential line search for efficient visual design optimization by crowds. ACM Transactions on Graphics. §20.2 §20.3 Ch. 20 Ch. 25 §25.1 §25.2 §25.4 §25.5 Ch. 25 §26.2 §27.2 §28.7 §30.3 §31.2 §31.8 §32.1
  76. Koyama, Y., Sato, I., and Goto, M. (2020). Sequential Gallery for Interactive Visual Design Optimization. ACM Transactions on Graphics 39(4) (SIGGRAPH 2020). §20.2 §20.3 Ch. 20 Ch. 25 §25.1 §25.2 §25.4 §25.5 Ch. 25 §26.3 §27.1 §27.2 §27.4 §28.6 §28.7 §28.10 Ch. 28 §30.3 §30.7 §31.2 §31.8 Ch. 32 §32.1 §32.3 §32.6 §32.10 Ch. 32 §46.1
  77. Krajbich, I., Armel, C., and Rangel, A. (2010). Visual fixations and the computation and comparison of value in simple choice. Nature Neuroscience. §39.3
  78. Kramer, R. S. S., and Cartledge, C. (2026). Sequential effects in facial attractiveness judgements: No evidence of stable individual differences. Perception. §16.1 §16.7 §37.3
  79. Krige, D. G. (1951). A Statistical Approach to Some Basic Mine Valuation Problems on the Witwatersrand. Journal of the Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy. Ch. 8 §11.5
  80. Kristiadi, A., Strieth-Kalthoff, F., Skreta, M., Poupart, P., Aspuru-Guzik, A., and Pleiss, G. (2024a). A Sober Look at LLMs for Material Discovery: Are They Actually Good for Bayesian Optimization Over Molecules? International Conference on Machine Learning. §35.2
  81. Kristiadi, A., Strieth-Kalthoff, F., Subramanian, S. G., Fortuin, V., Poupart, P., and Pleiss, G. (2024b). How Useful is Intermittent, Asynchronous Expert Feedback for Bayesian Optimization? AABI 2024. workshop paper §34.2
  82. Kullback, S., and Leibler, R. A. (1951). On Information and Sufficiency. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics. §6.2 Ch. 6
  83. Kumagai, W. (2017). Regret Analysis for Continuous Dueling Bandit. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. §21.2 §26.2 §26.8 §29.1 §29.4
  84. Kurdi, B., Seitchik, A. E., Axt, J. R., Carroll, T. J., Karapetyan, A., Kaushik, N., … Banaji, M. R. (2019). Relationship between the Implicit Association Test and intergroup behavior: A meta-analysis. American Psychologist. §38.1
  85. Kuric, E., Demcak, P., and Krajcovic, M. (2026). Distorted Perspectives of LLM-Simulated Preferences: Can AI Mislead Design? arXiv. preprint §35.2
  86. Kuroki, S., Nakagawa, M., Yoshida, S., Koyama, Y., and Tadashi, K. (2026). LAPPI: Interactive Optimization with LLM-Assisted Preference-Based Problem Instantiation. IEEE Access 14. §32.1 §32.3
  87. Kushner, H. J. (1964). A New Method of Locating the Maximum Point of an Arbitrary Multipeak Curve in the Presence of Noise. Journal of Basic Engineering. §1.3 §11.5 §12.1 §12.2
  88. Kusner, M. J., Gardner, J. R., Garnett, R., and Weinberger, K. Q. (2015). Differentially Private Bayesian Optimization. International Conference on Machine Learning. §43.8
  89. Kuss, M., and Rasmussen, C. E. (2005). Assessing Approximate Inference for Binary Gaussian Process Classification. Journal of Machine Learning Research. §17.2 §17.3 §17.6 Ch. 17 §27.4
  90. Kutulakos, Z., and Slade, P. (2024). Simulating human-in-the-loop optimization of exoskeleton assistance to compare optimization algorithm performance. bioRxiv. preprint §24.1 §24.2 §24.3 §24.4 Ch. 24 §36.5 §36.10
  91. Kvam, P. D., Busemeyer, J. R., and Pleskac, T. J. (2021). Temporal oscillations in preference strength provide evidence for an open system model of constructed preference. Scientific Reports. §37.4
  92. Kveton, B., Li, X., McAuley, J., Rossi, R., Shang, J., Wu, J., and Yu, T. (2025). Active Learning for Direct Preference Optimization. arXiv. preprint §35.3
  93. Kwa, T., Thomas, D., and Garriga-Alonso, A. (2024). Catastrophic Goodhart: regularizing RLHF with KL divergence does not mitigate heavy-tailed reward misspecification. NeurIPS 2024. §36.2
  94. Kwon, Y., Tsurumine, Y., Shimmura, T., Kawamura, S., and Matsubara, T. (2022). Physically Consistent Preferential Bayesian Optimization for Food Arrangement. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters. §28.7 §33.6

L

  1. Lai, T. L., and Robbins, H. (1985). Asymptotically Efficient Adaptive Allocation Rules. Advances in Applied Mathematics. §13.3 Ch. 13
  2. Laidlaw, C., Bronstein, E., Guo, T., Feng, D., Berglund, L., Svegliato, J., Russell, S., and Dragan, A. (2025). AssistanceZero: Scalably Solving Assistance Games. ICML 2025. §36.2 §36.8
  3. Landolt, L., Maddux, A. M., Schlaginhaufen, A., Vaishampayan, S., and Kamgarpour, M. (2026). Eliciting Truthful Feedback for Preference-Based Learning via the VCG Mechanism. International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics. §29.10
  4. Lang, L., Foote, D., Russell, S., Dragan, A., Jenner, E., and Emmons, S. (2024). When Your AIs Deceive You: Challenges of Partial Observability in Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback. NeurIPS 2024. §36.2
  5. Langerak, T., Zhang, R., Wang, Z., Kristensson, P. O., and Oulasvirta, A. (2026). Cost-Aware Bayesian Optimization for Prototyping Interactive Devices. CHI 2026. §26.5 §26.8 §32.1 §32.9
  6. Lassiter, D., and Goodman, N. D. (2017). Adjectival vagueness in a Bayesian model of interpretation. Synthese. §42.3
  7. Lattimore, T., and Szepesvári, C. (2020). Bandit Algorithms. Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781108571401. §13.1 §13.2 §13.3 §13.4 Ch. 13 Ch. 15
  8. Latty, T., and Beekman, M. (2011). Irrational decision-making in an amoeboid organism: transitivity and context-dependent preferences. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. §43.1
  9. Lazzaro, J., Buffelli, D., Shiu, D.-s., and Vakili, S. (2026). A Finite Time Analysis of Thompson Sampling for Bayesian Optimization with Preferential Feedback. International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics. §21.3 §21.4 Ch. 21 §26.5 §28.3 §28.5 §28.9 §29.3 §29.4 Ch. 29 §31.4 §31.8 §35.4 §45.1 Ch. 47
  10. Leahy, K., Daly, S. R., McKilligan, S., and Seifert, C. M. (2020). Design Fixation From Initial Examples: Provided Versus Self-Generated Ideas. Journal of Mechanical Design. §32.9 §44.1 §44.9
  11. Lee, D. G., and Daunizeau, J. (2021). Trading mental effort for confidence in the metacognitive control of value-based decision-making. eLife. §39.1
  12. Lee, S. C., and Feldman, G. (2025). Revisiting the link between true-self and morality: Replication and extension Registered Report of Newman, Bloom, and Knobe (2014) Studies 1 and 2. Royal Society Open Science. §41.4
  13. Lee, D. G., and Pezzulo, G. (2026). Choice-induced preference change under a sequential sampling model framework. Scientific Reports. doi:10.1038/s41598-026-44610-5. §37.2 §41.1
  14. Lee, K., Smith, L., Dragan, A., and Abbeel, P. (2021a). B-Pref: Benchmarking Preference-Based Reinforcement Learning. NeurIPS 2021 Datasets and Benchmarks. §36.1 §36.10 Ch. 36
  15. Lee, K., Smith, L., and Abbeel, P. (2021b). PEBBLE: Feedback-Efficient Interactive Reinforcement Learning via Relabeling Experience and Unsupervised Pre-training. ICML 2021. §36.1
  16. Lee, U. H., Shetty, V. S., Franks, P. W., Tan, J., Evangelopoulos, G., Ha, S., and Rouse, E. J. (2023). User preference optimization for control of ankle exoskeletons using sample efficient active learning. Science Robotics. §24.2 §33.1 §36.5
  17. Lee, J., Yi, S.-w., and Oh, M.-h. (2025a). Preference-based Reinforcement Learning beyond Pairwise Comparisons: Benefits of Multiple Options. NeurIPS 2025. §20.1 §29.7
  18. Lee, H., Van Geert, E., Celen, E., Marjieh, R., van Rijn, P., Park, M., and Jacoby, N. (2025b). Visual and Musical Aesthetic Preferences Across Cultures. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. §42.1 Ch. 42
  19. Lee, S. W., Choi, J., and Hyun, K. H. (2026). Part-level 3D shape generation driven by user intention inference with preferential Bayesian optimization. Scientific Reports. doi:10.1038/s41598-026-38916-7. §32.1
  20. Leenders, N., Quadt, T., Cule, B., Lindelauf, R., Monsuur, H., van Oijen, J., and Voskuijl, M. (2025). DT-PBO: an Interpretable Tree-based Surrogate Model for Preferential Bayesian Optimization. arXiv. preprint §27.3
  21. Letham, B., Karrer, B., Ottoni, G., and Bakshy, E. (2019). Constrained Bayesian Optimization with Noisy Experiments. Bayesian Analysis. §14.2 §14.4 Ch. 14 §15.1 §15.6 Ch. 15
  22. Letham, B., Calandra, R., Rai, A., and Bakshy, E. (2020). Re-Examining Linear Embeddings for High-Dimensional Bayesian Optimization. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33 (NeurIPS 2020). §14.6
  23. Levy, D. J., and Glimcher, P. W. (2012). The root of all value: a neural common currency for choice. Current Opinion in Neurobiology. §39.1
  24. Li, Z., and Scarlett, J. (2022). Gaussian Process Bandit Optimization with Few Batches. International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics. §21.4 §29.4
  25. Li, L., Jamieson, K., DeSalvo, G., Rostamizadeh, A., and Talwalkar, A. (2018). Hyperband: A Novel Bandit-Based Approach to Hyperparameter Optimization. Journal of Machine Learning Research. §14.7 §22.5
  26. Li, K., Tucker, M., Bıyık, E., Novoseller, E., Burdick, J. W., Sui, Y., … Ames, A. D. (2021). ROIAL: Region of Interest Active Learning for Characterizing Exoskeleton Gait Preference Landscapes. ICRA 2021. §16.6 §18.1 §20.3 §20.4 §27.2 §28.6 §28.7 §33.1 Ch. 33 §34.5
  27. Li, W., Rinaldo, A., and Wang, D. (2022). Detecting Abrupt Changes in Sequential Pairwise Comparison Data. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. §29.10
  28. Li, S., Zhang, Y., Ren, Z., Liang, C., Li, N., and Shah, J. A. (2024a). Enhancing Preference-based Linear Bandits via Human Response Time. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. §27.2 §29.10 §39.3 §45.1
  29. Li, X., Zhao, H., and Gu, Q. (2024b). Feel-Good Thompson Sampling for Contextual Dueling Bandits. International Conference on Machine Learning. §29.1 §29.11 §35.3
  30. Li, Z., Liao, Y.-C., and Holz, C. (2025a). Efficient Visual Appearance Optimization by Learning from Prior Preferences. UIST 2025. §20.5 §26.5 §27.3 §28.7 §32.1 §32.3 §32.5 §32.11 §43.7
  31. Li, B. Z., Tamkin, A., Goodman, N., and Andreas, J. (2025b). Eliciting Human Preferences with Language Models. ICLR 2025. §35.2
  32. Li, Z., Gebhardt, C., Liao, Y.-C., and Holz, C. (2026a). Automating UI Optimization through Multi-Agentic Reasoning. Proceedings of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2026). doi:10.1145/3772318.3791444. §32.1
  33. Li, Y., Colley, M., Gui, X., Rendon Cardona, C. C., Jansen, P., Sandor, C., and Igarashi, T. (2026b). BlurDriving: Investigating How Personalized Blur Techniques Impact Drivers' Performance in Virtual Reality. Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies. doi:10.1145/3831646. §32.1 §32.5
  34. Li, Y., Parashar, A., Zhou, E., and Fan, C. (2026c). Curiosity is Knowledge: Self-Consistent Learning and No-Regret Optimization with Active Inference. arXiv preprint 2602.06029. preprint §39.5 Ch. 39 §45.3
  35. Li, W., Oh, C., and Li, S. (2026d). General Exploratory Bonus for Optimistic Exploration in RLHF. International Conference on Learning Representations. §35.3
  36. Li, Y., Parashar, A., Zhou, E., and Fan, C. (2026e). Pragmatic Curiosity: A Unified Framework for Hybrid Learning and Optimization via Active Inference. arXiv preprint 2602.06104. preprint §39.5
  37. Li, Z., Liao, Y.-C., and Holz, C. (2026f). Preference-Guided Prompt Optimization for Text-to-Image Generation. CHI 2026. §20.6 §32.1 §32.4 §32.6 §35.2 §47.6
  38. Liao, Y.-C., Dudley, J. J., Mo, G. B., Cheng, C.-L., Chan, L., Oulasvirta, A., and Kristensson, P. O. (2023). Interaction Design With Multi-Objective Bayesian Optimization. IEEE Pervasive Computing. doi:10.1109/mprv.2022.3230597. §32.1 §32.2
  39. Liao, Y.-C., Desai, R., Pierce, A. M., Taylor, K. E., Benko, H., Jonker, T. R., and Gupta, A. (2024a). A Meta-Bayesian Approach for Rapid Online Parametric Optimization for Wrist-based Interactions. Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. doi:10.1145/3613904.3642071. §32.1 §32.5
  40. Liao, Y.-C., Mo, G. B., Dudley, J. J., Cheng, C.-L., Chan, L., Kristensson, P. O., and Oulasvirta, A. (2024b). Practical approaches to group-level multi-objective Bayesian optimization in interaction technique design. Collective Intelligence. doi:10.1177/26339137241241313. §32.1 §32.5
  41. Liao, Y.-C., Streli, P., Li, Z., Gebhardt, C., and Holz, C. (2025). Continual Human-in-the-Loop Optimization. CHI 2025. §32.1 §32.10
  42. Liao, Y.-C., Belo, J., Moon, H.-S., Steimle, J., and Feit, A. M. (2026). Efficient Human-in-the-Loop Optimization via Priors Learned from User Models. CHI 2026. §20.5 §26.5 §26.8 §32.1 §32.5 §32.11 §35.6 §46.3
  43. Libet, B., Gleason, C. A., Wright, E. W., and Pearl, D. K. (1983). Time of Conscious Intention to Act in Relation to Onset of Cerebral Activity (Readiness-Potential). Brain. §41.6
  44. Liew, S. X., Howe, P. D. L., and Little, D. R. (2016). The appropriacy of averaging in the study of context effects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. §16.4 §37.2
  45. Lin, Z. J., Astudillo, R., Frazier, P., and Bakshy, E. (2022). Preference Exploration for Efficient Bayesian Optimization with Multiple Outcomes. International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics. §14.5 §15.6 §19.4 Ch. 19 §26.4 §26.8 Ch. 26 §28.2 §28.4 §28.5 §28.7 §28.8 §28.9 §28.10 §31.4 §31.6 §31.8 §34.3 Ch. 34 §35.2 §35.6 §42.4 §43.4 Ch. C
  46. Lin, Y., Seto, S., ter Hoeve, M., Metcalf, K., Theobald, B.-J., Wang, X., … Zhang, T. (2024a). On the Limited Generalization Capability of the Implicit Reward Model Induced by Direct Preference Optimization. Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2024. doi:10.18653/v1/2024.findings-emnlp.940. §35.4
  47. Lin, X., Dai, Z., Verma, A., Ng, S.-K., Jaillet, P., and Low, B. K. H. (2024b). Prompt Optimization with Human Feedback. ICML 2024 MHFAIA Workshop (no formal proceedings). workshop paper §35.3
  48. Lindauer, M., Eggensperger, K., Feurer, M., Biedenkapp, A., Deng, D., Benjamins, C., … Hutter, F. (2022). SMAC3: A Versatile Bayesian Optimization Package for Hyperparameter Optimization. Journal of Machine Learning Research. §14.8
  49. Lindig-León, C., Kaur, N., and Braun, D. A. (2022). From Bayes-optimal to heuristic decision-making in a two-alternative forced choice task with an information-theoretic bounded rationality model. Frontiers in Neuroscience. §43.2
  50. Lindley, D. V. (1956). On a Measure of the Information Provided by an Experiment. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics. Ch. 6 §6.4 Ch. 6 §15.8
  51. Lindner, D., Turchetta, M., Tschiatschek, S., Ciosek, K., and Krause, A. (2021). Information Directed Reward Learning for Reinforcement Learning. NeurIPS 2021. §36.1
  52. Lindqvist, E., Östling, R., and Cesarini, D. (2020). Long-Run Effects of Lottery Wealth on Psychological Well-Being. The Review of Economic Studies. §38.4
  53. List, J. A. (2003). Does Market Experience Eliminate Market Anomalies? The Quarterly Journal of Economics. §40.1
  54. List, J. A. (2004). Neoclassical Theory Versus Prospect Theory: Evidence from the Marketplace. Econometrica. §40.1
  55. Liu, Y., and Kalinin, S. V. (2025). Pareto-Optimal Experimentation: Human-Guided Multi-Objective Bayesian Optimization in Scanning Probe Microscopy. Nano Letters. §34.2
  56. Liu, T., Astorga, N., Seedat, N., and van der Schaar, M. (2024a). Large Language Models to Enhance Bayesian Optimization. International Conference on Learning Representations. §35.2
  57. Liu, Z., Chen, C., Du, C., Lee, W. S., and Lin, M. (2024b). Sample-Efficient Alignment for LLMs. NeurIPS 2024 LanGame Workshop. workshop paper §35.3
  58. Liu, T., Qin, Z., Wu, J., Shen, J., Khalman, M., Joshi, R., … Wang, X. (2025a). LiPO: Listwise Preference Optimization through Learning-to-Rank. Proceedings of the 2025 Conference of the Nations of the Americas Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (Volume 1: Long Papers). doi:10.18653/v1/2025.naacl-long.121. §35.5 §35.6
  59. Liu, N., Hu, X. E., Savas, Y., Baum, M. A., Berinsky, A. J., Chaney, A. J. B., … Stewart, B. M. (2025b). Short-term exposure to filter-bubble recommendation systems has limited polarization effects: Naturalistic experiments on YouTube. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. §36.4
  60. Liu, N., Sun, C., Klinkner, K., and Malmasi, S. (2026a). Beyond Pairs: Your Language Model is Secretly Optimizing a Preference Graph. arXiv. preprint §35.6
  61. Liu, C., Ling, S., and Jacobson, A. (2026b). GimmBO: Interactive Generative Image Model Merging via Bayesian Optimization. ACM Transactions on Graphics. doi:10.1145/3811293. §20.3 §25.4 §27.3 §28.7 §30.3 §32.1 §32.4 §32.6 §35.6 §46.1 §47.6
  62. Liu, M., Chen, Y., Fan, Z., Farina, G., Ozdaglar, A., and Zhang, K. (2026c). Online Learning and Equilibrium Computation with Ranking Feedback. ICLR 2026. §29.10
  63. Liu, X.-Y., Li, G., Wang, W., and Hou, Z.-G. (2026d). Personalized Lower-limb Exoskeleton Assistance via Preference-based Bayesian Optimization. arXiv. preprint §24.2 §33.1 §33.3
  64. Liu, K., Long, Q., Shi, Z., Su, W. J., and Xiao, J. (2026e). Statistical Impossibility and Possibility of Aligning LLMs with Human Preferences: From Condorcet Paradox to Nash Equilibrium. The Annals of Statistics. doi:10.1214/26-aos2643. §21.1 §29.9
  65. Lizotte, D., Wang, T., Bowling, M., and Schuurmans, D. (2007). Automatic Gait Optimization with Gaussian Process Regression. Proceedings of the 20th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2007). §15.1 §15.4
  66. Loeppky, J. L., Sacks, J., and Welch, W. J. (2009). Choosing the Sample Size of a Computer Experiment: A Practical Guide. Technometrics. §11.4
  67. Lopez-Persem, A., Bastin, J., Petton, M., Abitbol, R., Lehongre, K., Adam, C., … Pessiglione, M. (2020). Four core properties of the human brain valuation system demonstrated in intracranial signals. Nature Neuroscience. §39.1 §39.9
  68. Lou, X., Yan, D., Shen, W., Yan, Y., Xie, J., and Zhang, J. (2024). Uncertainty-aware Reward Model: Teaching Reward Models to Know What is Unknown. arXiv (withdrawn from ICLR 2025). preprint §35.6
  69. Luce, R. D. (1959). Individual Choice Behavior: A Theoretical Analysis. Wiley. §16.4 Ch. 16 §20.1 Ch. 20 §43.2
  70. Luguri, J., and Strahilevitz, L. J. (2021). Shining a Light on Dark Patterns. Journal of Legal Analysis. §42.2
  71. Lukić, M. N., and Beder, J. H. (2001). Stochastic Processes with Sample Paths in Reproducing Kernel Hilbert Spaces. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society. §10.2

M

  1. Ma, Q., Gao, D., Cai, R., Zhao, B., Zhou, H., Zhang, J., and Zhao, Z. (2026). Personalized RewardBench: Evaluating Reward Models with Human Aligned Personalization. COLM 2026. §35.6
  2. Maberry, A., and Martin, A. E. (2026). Just Noticeable Difference of Impedance Parameters While Walking in an Ankle Exoskeleton. IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering. §24.3 §24.5 §33.1 §33.3 §37.3 §39.7 §39.9
  3. MacKay, D. J. C. (1992). Information-Based Objective Functions for Active Data Selection. Neural Computation. §6.4 §6.5 §15.8
  4. MacKay, D. J. C. (2003). Information Theory, Inference, and Learning Algorithms. Cambridge University Press. Ch. 2 §5.6 Ch. 5 Ch. 6
  5. MacKenzie, D., and Millo, Y. (2003). Constructing a Market, Performing Theory: The Historical Sociology of a Financial Derivatives Exchange. American Journal of Sociology. §42.2
  6. Macy, M., Deri, S., Ruch, A., and Tong, N. (2019). Opinion cascades and the unpredictability of partisan polarization. Science Advances. §43.7
  7. Madison, G., and Schiölde, G. (2017). Repeated Listening Increases the Liking for Music Regardless of Its Complexity: Implications for the Appreciation and Aesthetics of Music. Frontiers in Neuroscience. §44.6
  8. Madrian, B. C., and Shea, D. F. (2001). The Power of Suggestion: Inertia in 401(k) Participation and Savings Behavior. The Quarterly Journal of Economics. §41.2
  9. Mahmud, S., Nakamura, M., and Zilberstein, S. (2025). MAPLE: A Framework for Active Preference Learning Guided by Large Language Models. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. doi:10.1609/aaai.v39i26.34964. §35.2
  10. Maier, M., Bartoš, F., Stanley, T. D., Shanks, D. R., Harris, A. J. L., and Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2022). No evidence for nudging after adjusting for publication bias. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. §41.2
  11. Maier, M., Powell, D., Murchie, P., and Allan, J. L. (2025). Systematic review of the effects of decision fatigue in healthcare professionals on medical decision-making. Health Psychology Review. §37.2
  12. Manassi, M., Murai, Y., and Whitney, D. (2023). Serial dependence in visual perception: A meta-analysis and review. Journal of Vision. §37.3
  13. Mandal, D., Nika, A., Kamalaruban, P., Singla, A., and Radanovic, G. (2025). Corruption Robust Offline Reinforcement Learning with Human Feedback. International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics. §29.10
  14. Mansoury, M., Abdollahpouri, H., Pechenizkiy, M., Mobasher, B., and Burke, R. (2020). Feedback Loop and Bias Amplification in Recommender Systems. CIKM 2020. §36.4
  15. Maoz, U., Yaffe, G., Koch, C., and Mudrik, L. (2019). Neural precursors of decisions that matter—an ERP study of deliberate and arbitrary choice. eLife. §41.6 §41.12
  16. Maran, D., Bacchiocchi, F., Stradi, F. E., Castiglioni, M., Gatti, N., and Restelli, M. (2024). Bandits with Ranking Feedback. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. §29.7
  17. March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning. Organization Science. §42.5
  18. Marchisano, C., Lim, J., Cho, H. S., Suh, D. S., Jeon, S. Y., Kim, K. O., and O'Mahony, M. (2003). Consumers report preferences when they should not: a cross-cultural study. Journal of Sensory Studies. §44.5
  19. Marcos, M., Mur-Labadia, L., and Martinez-Cantin, R. (2025). Random rotational embedding Bayesian optimization for human-in-the-loop personalized music generation. PLOS One. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0335853. §32.1 §32.8
  20. Martin, R. M., and Collins, S. H. (2026). Improving CMA-ES Convergence Speed, Efficiency, and Reliability in Noisy Robot Optimization Problems. Evolutionary Computation. §36.5 §36.10
  21. Martin, C., Boutilier, C., Meshi, O., and Sandholm, T. (2024). Model-Free Preference Elicitation. Thirty-Third International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. §36.3
  22. Mäs, M., and Nax, H. H. (2016). A behavioral study of “noise” in coordination games. Journal of Economic Theory. §43.6
  23. Matějka, F., and McKay, A. (2015). Rational Inattention to Discrete Choices: A New Foundation for the Multinomial Logit Model. American Economic Review. §39.4 §40.5 §43.2 §44.9
  24. Matheron, G. (1963). Principles of Geostatistics. Economic Geology. Ch. 8 §11.5
  25. Mathur, A., Acar, G., Friedman, M. J., Lucherini, E., Mayer, J., Chetty, M., and Narayanan, A. (2019). Dark Patterns at Scale: Findings from a Crawl of 11K Shopping Websites. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction. §42.2
  26. May, K. O. (1952). A Set of Independent Necessary and Sufficient Conditions for Simple Majority Decision. Econometrica. §40.7
  27. Mazar, N., Amir, O., and Ariely, D. (2008). The Dishonesty of Honest People: A Theory of Self-Concept Maintenance. Journal of Marketing Research. §38.5
  28. McCausland, W. J., Davis-Stober, C., Marley, A., Park, S., and Brown, N. (2020). Testing the Random Utility Hypothesis Directly. The Economic Journal. doi:10.1093/ej/uez039. §16.5 §16.7 §37.4 §37.6 Ch. 37 §45.2 §45.3
  29. McCourt, M., and Dewancker, I. (2019). Sampling Humans for Optimizing Preferences in Coloring Artwork. ICML 2019 Workshop on Human in the Loop Learning. workshop paper §31.8 §32.1
  30. McCracken, G. (1986). Culture and Consumption: A Theoretical Account of the Structure and Movement of the Cultural Meaning of Consumer Goods. Journal of Consumer Research. §42.5
  31. McElfresh, D. C., Chan, L., Doyle, K., Sinnott-Armstrong, W., Conitzer, V., Schaich Borg, J., and Dickerson, J. P. (2021). Indecision Modeling. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. doi:10.1609/aaai.v35i7.16746. §36.3
  32. McFadden, D. (1974). Conditional Logit Analysis of Qualitative Choice Behavior. Frontiers in Econometrics. §16.5 Ch. 16 §20.1
  33. McFadden, D. (1981). Econometric Models of Probabilistic Choice. Structural Analysis of Discrete Data with Econometric Applications. §37.4 §40.4
  34. McKay, M. D., Beckman, R. J., and Conover, W. J. (1979). A Comparison of Three Methods for Selecting Values of Input Variables in the Analysis of Output from a Computer Code. Technometrics. §11.4
  35. McShane, B. B., and Böckenholt, U. (2018). Multilevel Multivariate Meta-analysis with Application to Choice Overload. Psychometrika. §38.3
  36. Mehta, V., Belakaria, S., Das, V., Neopane, O., Dai, Y., Bogunovic, I., … Neiswanger, W. (2025). Sample Efficient Preference Alignment in LLMs via Active Exploration. COLM 2025. §35.3
  37. Meindl, J., Tian, Y., Cui, T., Thost, V., Hong, Z.-W., Dürholt, J., … Luković, M. K. (2025). ZeroShotOpt: Towards Zero-Shot Pretrained Models for Efficient Black-Box Optimization. arXiv. preprint §30.5
  38. Meinhardt, L.-M., Schramm, C., Jansen, P., Colley, M., and Rukzio, E. (2025). Fly Away: Evaluating the Impact of Motion Fidelity on Optimized User Interface Design via Bayesian Optimization in Automated Urban Air Mobility Simulations. CHI 2025. §32.1 §32.5
  39. Melikidze, D., Schneider, M., Lam, J., Wertich, M., Hakimi, I., Pásztor, B., and Krause, A. (2026). ActiveUltraFeedback: Efficient Preference Data Generation using Active Learning. ICML 2026. §35.3 Ch. 35
  40. Melo, L. C., Tigas, P., Abate, A., and Gal, Y. (2024). Deep Bayesian Active Learning for Preference Modeling in Large Language Models. NeurIPS 2024. §35.3
  41. Menn, J., Kober, M., Brunzema, P., Stenger, D., and Trimpe, S. (2026a). Local Preferential Bayesian Optimization. arXiv. preprint §26.5 §27.6 §28.3 §28.7 §28.9 §30.4 Ch. 30 §31.4 §31.8 §35.5
  42. Menn, J., Stenger, D., and Trimpe, S. (2026b). Preferential Bayesian Optimization with Crash Feedback. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters. doi:10.1109/LRA.2026.3665446. §20.4 §26.5 §27.2 §28.7 §31.8 §33.6 §33.7
  43. Mercer, J. (1909). Functions of Positive and Negative Type, and Their Connection with the Theory of Integral Equations. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Containing Papers of a Mathematical or Physical Character. §10.3
  44. Mercier, H., and Sperber, D. (2011). Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. §42.2
  45. Merritt, S. H., Gaffuri, K., and Zak, P. J. (2023). Accurately predicting hit songs using neurophysiology and machine learning. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence. §39.2
  46. Mertens, S., Herberz, M., Hahnel, U. J. J., and Brosch, T. (2022a). Reply to Maier et al., Szaszi et al., and Bakdash and Marusich: The present and future of choice architecture research. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. non-peer-reviewed §41.2
  47. Mertens, S., Herberz, M., Hahnel, U. J. J., and Brosch, T. (2022b). The effectiveness of nudging: A meta-analysis of choice architecture interventions across behavioral domains. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. §41.2
  48. Meta (2026). AEPsych. GitHub. software §31.1 §31.3
  49. Meta Platforms, Inc. (2026a). ax-platform release history. PyPI. software §14.8 §31.1
  50. Meta Platforms, Inc. (2026b). ax/generation_strategy/transition_criterion.py. GitHub. software §31.1
  51. Meta Platforms, Inc. (2026c). Bayesian optimization with pairwise comparison data (preferential Bayesian optimization tutorial, documentation v0.18.1). botorch.org. software §18.6 Ch. 18 Ch. 19 §28.2 §31.1 Ch. 31 §C.5 Ch. C
  52. Meta Platforms, Inc. (2026d). Bayesian optimization with preference exploration (BOPE tutorial, documentation v0.18.1). botorch.org. software §28.6 §28.9 §34.3
  53. Meta Platforms, Inc. (2026e). BoTorch CHANGELOG. GitHub. software §9.5 §14.1 §14.2 §14.6 §18.6 §19.4 Ch. 26 §26.3 §26.5 §26.8 Ch. 26 §27.5 §28.2 §28.5 §30.3 §30.5 §30.7 §31.1
  54. Meta Platforms, Inc. (2026f). BoTorch LICENSE. GitHub. software §31.1
  55. Meta Platforms, Inc. (2026g). BoTorch pairwise likelihood source code likelihoods/pairwise.py. GitHub. software §16.5 §18.6 §27.1 §27.5 §43.2
  56. Meta Platforms, Inc. (2026h). BoTorch PairwiseGP source code pairwise_gp.py. GitHub. software §9.5 §18.6 Ch. 27 §27.5 Ch. 27 §30.3 §31.2 Ch. 31 §35.4 §C.3
  57. Meta Platforms, Inc. (2026i). botorch release history. PyPI. software §14.8 §31.1
  58. Meta Platforms, Inc. (2026j). botorch/acquisition/preference.py. GitHub. software §31.1
  59. Meta Platforms, Inc. (2026k). botorch/models/utils/gpytorch_modules.py. GitHub. software §9.4 §9.5 §14.6 §30.1 §30.3 §31.2
  60. Meta Platforms, Inc. (2026l). CHANGELOG (versions 1.2 to 1.3). GitHub. software Ch. 26 §26.5 §31.1 §34.3 §35.6
  61. Meta Platforms, Inc. (2026m). tutorials directory. GitHub. software §31.1
  62. Meta Research (2023). qEUBO. GitHub. software §31.1 §31.3 §31.6
  63. Meta Research (2026). lilo. GitHub. software §31.1
  64. Miettinen, K., Eskelinen, P., Ruiz, F., and Luque, M. (2010). NAUTILUS method: An interactive technique in multiobjective optimization based on the nadir point. European Journal of Operational Research. §40.11 Ch. 40 §46.9
  65. Mikkola, P. (2024). Humans as Information Sources in Bayesian Optimization. Aalto University. thesis §31.8
  66. Mikkola, P., Todorović, M., Järvi, J., Rinke, P., and Kaski, S. (2020). Projective Preferential Bayesian Optimization. International Conference on Machine Learning. §20.2 §20.3 §20.7 Ch. 20 §25.4 Ch. 25 §26.3 §27.4 §28.1 §28.6 §28.7 §28.9 §28.10 Ch. 28 §30.3 §31.4 §31.7 §31.8 §32.4 §34.2 §34.5 Ch. 34 §36.7
  67. Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review. §16.1 Ch. 16 §37.3
  68. Millidge, B., Tschantz, A., and Buckley, C. L. (2021). Whence the Expected Free Energy? Neural Computation. §39.5 Ch. 39 §45.3
  69. Minka, T. P. (2001). Expectation Propagation for Approximate Bayesian Inference. Proceedings of the 17th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI 2001). §17.3 Ch. 17
  70. Mo, G., Dudley, J., Chan, L., Liao, Y.-C., Oulasvirta, A., and Kristensson, P. O. (2024). Cooperative Multi-Objective Bayesian Design Optimization. ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems. doi:10.1145/3657643. §20.6 §32.1 §32.2 §32.4 §32.6 §32.9 §32.11 Ch. 32 §44.1
  71. Močkus, J. (1975). On Bayesian Methods for Seeking the Extremum. Optimization Techniques IFIP Technical Conference. §1.3 §11.5 §12.3
  72. Monin, B., and Miller, D. T. (2001). Moral credentials and the expression of prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. §38.5
  73. Montoya, R. M., Horton, R. S., Vevea, J. L., Citkowicz, M., and Lauber, E. A. (2017). A re-examination of the mere exposure effect: The influence of repeated exposure on recognition, familiarity, and liking. Psychological Bulletin. §37.2
  74. Mormann, M., and Russo, J. E. (2021). Does Attention Increase the Value of Choice Alternatives? Trends in Cognitive Sciences. §37.3
  75. Morrot, G., Brochet, F., and Dubourdieu, D. (2001). The Color of Odors. Brain and Language. §44.5
  76. Mrkva, K., and Van Boven, L. (2020). Salience theory of mere exposure: Relative exposure increases liking, extremity, and emotional intensity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. §37.2
  77. Muldrew, W., Hayes, P., Zhang, M., and Barber, D. (2024). Active Preference Learning for Large Language Models. ICML 2024. §35.2 §35.3
  78. Müller, S., Reuter, A., Hollmann, N., Rügamer, D., and Hutter, F. (2025). Position: The Future of Bayesian Prediction Is Prior-Fitted. ICML 2025 (position paper). §30.5
  79. Munos, R., Valko, M., Calandriello, D., Azar, M. G., Rowland, M., Guo, Z. D., … Piot, B. (2024). Nash Learning from Human Feedback. ICML 2024. §35.4
  80. Murphy, K. P. (2022). Probabilistic Machine Learning: An Introduction. MIT Press. Ch. 4
  81. Murray, I., Adams, R. P., and MacKay, D. J. C. (2010). Elliptical Slice Sampling. Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics (AISTATS 2010). §17.5 Ch. 17
  82. Myers, V., Bıyık, E., Anari, N., and Sadigh, D. (2021). Learning Multimodal Rewards from Rankings. CoRL 2021. §33.6

N

  1. Nan, T., Li, X., Kroer, C., and Lin, T. (2026). Efficient Exploration for Iterative Nash Preference Optimization. arXiv. preprint §35.3
  2. Nandy, A., and Goucher-Lambert, K. (2025). Exploring the Effectiveness of Interactive Preference Learning for Adapting Designs to Abstract Semantic Attributes. Journal of Mechanical Design. §32.1 §44.4
  3. Natenzon, P. (2019). Random Choice and Learning. Journal of Political Economy. §40.4
  4. Neal, R. M. (1996). Bayesian Learning for Neural Networks. Springer. §7.2 Ch. 7 §9.2 Ch. 9
  5. Netzer, N. (2009). Evolution of Time Preferences and Attitudes toward Risk. American Economic Review. §43.1
  6. Nguyen, C. T. (2020). Autonomy and Aesthetic Engagement. Mind. §41.5 Ch. 41
  7. Nguyen, Q. P., Tay, S., Low, B. K. H., and Jaillet, P. (2021). Top- Ranking Bayesian Optimization. AAAI 2021. §17.4 §20.1 §20.3 §20.4 Ch. 20 §27.1 §27.2 §28.1 §28.5 §28.8 §28.9
  8. Nguyen, S., Liu, X., and Senanayake, R. (2026). CUPID in the Model Zoo: Online Matchmaking for Selecting Your Dream LLM. International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML 2026). §35.3
  9. Nickisch, H., and Rasmussen, C. E. (2008). Approximations for Binary Gaussian Process Classification. Journal of Machine Learning Research. §17.3 Ch. 17
  10. Nielsen, K., and Rehbeck, J. (2022). When Choices Are Mistakes. American Economic Review. §40.2 §45.3 §46.6
  11. Nielsen, K., and Rigotti, L. (2026). Revealed Incomplete Preferences. Working paper (author's website). working paper §40.8 §40.14 Ch. 40 §45.2 Ch. 45 §46.2 §47.1
  12. Nielsen, J., Nielsen, J., and Larsen, J. (2015). Perception-based Personalization of Hearing Aids using Gaussian Processes and Active Learning. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing. §33.4
  13. Nieuwenstein, M. R., Wierenga, T., Morey, R. D., Wicherts, J. M., Blom, T. N., Wagenmakers, E.-J., and van Rijn, H. (2015). On making the right choice: A meta-analysis and large-scale replication attempt of the unconscious thought advantage. Judgment and Decision Making. §37.2 §45.3
  14. Nijman, M., Yang, Q., Hidrio, C., and Ford, R. (2022). The stability of self-reported emotional response and liking of beer in context. Food Quality and Preference. doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2022.104603. §44.5 §44.9
  15. Nisan, N., and Segal, I. (2006). The communication requirements of efficient allocations and supporting prices. Journal of Economic Theory. §36.3
  16. Niwa, R., Yoshida, S., Koyama, Y., and Ushiku, Y. (2025). Cooperative Design Optimization through Natural Language Interaction. UIST 2025. §19.7 §26.5 §32.1 §32.2 §32.7 §32.9 §32.10 §32.11 Ch. 32 §35.2 §45.3 Ch. 45 §46.4
  17. NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation (1993). Report of the NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation, January 11, 1993. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. non-peer-reviewed §40.9
  18. Noggle, R. (2026). The Ethics of Manipulation. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. non-peer-reviewed §41.2 Ch. 41
  19. Noothigattu, R., Peters, D., and Procaccia, A. (2020). Axioms for Learning from Pairwise Comparisons. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. §36.6
  20. Nouwens, S. P. H., Marceta, S. M., Bui, M., van Dijk, D. M. A. H., Groothuis-Oudshoorn, C. G. M., Veldwijk, J., van Til, J. A., and de Bekker-Grob, E. W. (2025). The Evolving Landscape of Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: A Systematic Review. PharmacoEconomics. §44.7
  21. Novoseller, E. R. (2021). Online Learning from Human Feedback with Applications to Exoskeleton Gait Optimization. California Institute of Technology. doi:10.7907/gvtx-1586. thesis §31.8
  22. Novoseller, E., Wei, Y., Sui, Y., Yue, Y., and Burdick, J. (2020). Dueling Posterior Sampling for Preference-Based Reinforcement Learning. Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence. §29.1 §36.1
  23. Nyhan, B., Settle, J., Thorson, E., Wojcieszak, M., Barberá, P., Chen, A. Y., … Tucker, J. A. (2023). Like-minded sources on Facebook are prevalent but not polarizing. Nature. §42.2 Ch. 42

O

  1. O'Mahony, M., and Wichchukit, S. (2017). The evolution of paired preference tests from forced choice to the use of ‘No Preference’ options, from preference frequencies to d′ values, from placebo pairs to signal detection. Trends in Food Science & Technology. §16.7 §44.5 §44.9 Ch. 44 §46.2 Ch. 46 §47.1
  2. Oh, Y. (2026). Robust Linear Dueling Bandits with Post-serving Context under Unknown Delays and Adversarial Corruptions. ICML 2026. §29.10
  3. Oh, Y., Park, J., and Paik, T. (2026a). Neural Variance-aware Dueling Bandits with Deep Representation and Shallow Exploration. International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics. §29.3
  4. Oh, G., Lee, J., Park, J., Yu, Y., Bae, W., and Noh, J. (2026b). Random Is Hard to Beat: Active Selection in online DPO with Modern LLMs. ICLR 2026 Workshop: I Can't Believe It's Not Better (ICBINB). workshop paper §35.3 §35.7 Ch. 35 §45.1 §46.9 §47.3
  5. Ok, E. A., and Tserenjigmid, G. (2022). Indifference, indecisiveness, experimentation, and stochastic choice. Theoretical Economics. §43.4 Ch. 43 §44.9 §45.2 Ch. 45 §46.2 §47.1
  6. Oko, K., Ulichney, A., Haghtalab, N., and Bao, H. (2026). Distortion of AI Alignment Revisited: RLHF is a Decent Utilitarian Aligner. International Conference on Machine Learning. §35.4 §35.7
  7. Olson, M., Santorella, E., Tiao, L. C., Cakmak, S., Garrard, M., Daulton, S., … Bakshy, E. (2025). Ax: A Platform for Adaptive Experimentation. International Conference on Automated Machine Learning. §14.8 §15.6 §31.1
  8. Oprea, R. (2024). Decisions under Risk Are Decisions under Complexity. American Economic Review. §37.2 §37.6 §40.1 §45.3
  9. Oprea, R. (2025). Initial Reply to Banki, Simonsohn, Walatka and Wu (2025). Data Colada. non-peer-reviewed §37.2 §40.12
  10. Optuna contributors (2026). optuna.samplers.GPSampler, Optuna 5.0.0 documentation. Read the Docs. software §14.1 §14.8
  11. Optuna developers (2026a). optuna 5.0.0. PyPI. software §14.8 §31.1
  12. Optuna developers (2026b). optuna-dashboard 0.21.0. PyPI. software Ch. 26 §26.4 §30.3 §31.1
  13. Optuna developers (2026c). optuna-dashboard PreferentialGPSampler source code gp.py. GitHub. software §18.6 §27.4 §27.5 §30.3 §31.2
  14. Ou, C., Buschek, D., Mayer, S., and Butz, A. (2022). The Human in the Infinite Loop: A Case Study on Revealing and Explaining Human-AI Interaction Loop Failures. Mensch und Computer 2022. §16.1 §16.6 §19.7 §20.6 §25.1 §26.4 §31.7 §31.8 Ch. 31 §32.1 §32.3 §32.4 §32.6 §32.9 §32.11 Ch. 32 §34.5 §45.3 §46.6
  15. Ou, C., Mayer, S., and Butz, A. (2023). The Impact of Expertise in the Loop for Exploring Machine Rationality. IUI 2023. §20.4 §25.1 §25.2 §25.5 Ch. 25 §26.4 §30.7 §31.7 §31.8 §32.1 §32.4 §32.6
  16. Ouyang, L., Wu, J., Jiang, X., Almeida, D., Wainwright, C., Mishkin, P., … Lowe, R. (2022). Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. §6.2 §35.1 Ch. 35
  17. Owaki, T., Koyama, Y., Nakano, T., Yamaguchi, T., Goto, M., and Sakai, H. (2026). Learning Feasibility-Aware Latent Spaces for Preference-Based Exploration of Procedural Automotive Wheel Designs. arXiv. preprint §20.6 §32.1 §32.9 §46.3 §46.9
  18. Ozaki, R. (2026). PLMBO (Preference Learning Multi-Objective Bayesian Optimization). OptunaHub. software §31.1
  19. Ozaki, R., Ishikawa, K., Kanzaki, Y., Takeno, S., Takeuchi, I., and Karasuyama, M. (2024). Multi-Objective Bayesian Optimization with Active Preference Learning. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. §28.3 §28.6 §28.7 §31.1 §31.8
  20. Ozawa, M., and Khrennikov, A. (2023). The logical inconsistency of the model and experiment presented in the paper of Busemeyer and Wang “Is there a problem with quantum models of psychological measurements?”. PsyArXiv. preprint §37.4

P

  1. Palan, M., Landolfi, N. C., Shevchuk, G., and Sadigh, D. (2019). Learning Reward Functions by Integrating Human Demonstrations and Preferences. RSS 2019. §33.6
  2. Pan, A., Bhatia, K., and Steinhardt, J. (2022). The Effects of Reward Misspecification: Mapping and Mitigating Misaligned Models. ICLR 2022. §36.2
  3. Panickssery, A., Bowman, S. R., and Feng, S. (2024). LLM Evaluators Recognize and Favor Their Own Generations. NeurIPS 2024. §35.2
  4. Papadimitriou, C. H., and Tsitsiklis, J. N. (1987). The Complexity of Markov Decision Processes. Mathematics of Operations Research. §36.8
  5. Papenmeier, L., Cheng, N., Becker, S., and Nardi, L. (2025a). Exploring Exploration in Bayesian Optimization. Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence. §30.2
  6. Papenmeier, L., Poloczek, M., and Nardi, L. (2025b). Understanding High-Dimensional Bayesian Optimization. ICML 2025, PMLR 267:47902-47923. §9.5 §14.6 §26.5 §30.1 §30.2 §30.8 Ch. 30
  7. Park, K., and Collins, S. H. (2026). Simultaneous Forward and Inverse Human-in-the-Loop Optimization. CoRL 2026. §33.1
  8. Pásztor, B., Kassraie, P., and Krause, A. (2024). Bandits with Preference Feedback: A Stackelberg Game Perspective. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. doi:10.52202/079017-0383. §21.3 §21.4 Ch. 21 §26.5 §28.3 §28.5 §29.3 §29.4 Ch. 29 §31.4 §31.8 §35.6 §45.1
  9. Paul, L. A. (2014). Transformative Experience. Oxford University Press. §41.1
  10. Pedregosa, F., Varoquaux, G., Gramfort, A., Michel, V., Thirion, B., Grisel, O., … Duchesnay, É. (2011). Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python. Journal of Machine Learning Research. §22.1 §22.4
  11. Peng, S., Chen, H., and Driggs-Campbell, K. (2025). Towards Uncertainty Unification: A Case Study for Preference Learning. RSS 2025. §27.2
  12. Peng, Y.-H., Bigham, J. P., and Wu, J. (2026). Efficient Personalization of Generative User Interfaces. arXiv. preprint §20.5 §32.1 §32.3 §32.4 §35.2 §45.1 §46.4
  13. Perdomo, J. C., Zrnic, T., Mendler-Dünner, C., and Hardt, M. (2020). Performative Prediction. ICML. §42.2 Ch. 42 §45.2
  14. Petersen, K. B., and Pedersen, M. S. (2012). The Matrix Cookbook. Technical University of Denmark. non-peer-reviewed §3.7 Ch. 3 §4.5 Ch. 4 §9.4 Ch. B
  15. Peterson, J. C., Bourgin, D. D., Agrawal, M., Reichman, D., and Griffiths, T. L. (2021). Using large-scale experiments and machine learning to discover theories of human decision-making. Science. §37.4 §37.5
  16. Petitmengin, C., Remillieux, A., Cahour, B., and Carter-Thomas, S. (2013). A gap in Nisbett and Wilson’s findings? A first-person access to our cognitive processes. Consciousness and Cognition. §41.4
  17. Pettigrew, R. (2019). Choosing for Changing Selves. Oxford University Press. §41.1
  18. Pettigrew, R. (2023). Nudging for changing selves. Synthese. §41.2 §41.12 Ch. 41 §45.3 §45.5 Ch. 45 §46.8
  19. Picheny, V., Wagner, T., and Ginsbourger, D. (2013). A Benchmark of Kriging-Based Infill Criteria for Noisy Optimization. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization. §14.2
  20. Piriyakulkij, W. T., Kuleshov, V., and Ellis, K. (2023). Active Preference Inference using Language Models and Probabilistic Reasoning. NeurIPS 2023 FMDM Workshop. workshop paper §35.2
  21. Pith (2026). Machine-generated review of arXiv 2505.23673 (MR-LPF). pith.science. non-peer-reviewed §29.3
  22. Plackett, R. L. (1975). The Analysis of Permutations. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series C (Applied Statistics). §16.4 Ch. 16 §20.1 Ch. 20
  23. Plott, C. R. (2001). Rational Individual Behavior in Markets and Social Choice Processes: The Discovered Preference Hypothesis. Information, Finance and General Equilibrium: Collected Papers on the Experimental Foundations of Economics and Political Science, Volume III. §40.2
  24. Poddar, S., Wan, Y., Ivison, H., Gupta, A., and Jaques, N. (2024). Personalizing Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback with Variational Preference Learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 37 (NeurIPS 2024). doi:10.52202/079017-1664. §35.6
  25. Poggensee, K. L., and Collins, S. H. (2021). How adaptation, training, and customization contribute to benefits from exoskeleton assistance. Science Robotics. §24.1 §24.2 §24.3 §24.4 §24.6 Ch. 24 §33.1 §39.7 §39.9 Ch. 39 §46.5 §47.3 §47.8
  26. Polanía, R., Woodford, M., and Ruff, C. C. (2019). Efficient coding of subjective value. Nature Neuroscience. §37.3 §39.4 Ch. 39 §43.5 §45.2 §45.4
  27. Pombo, M., Brielmann, A. A., and Pelli, D. G. (2023). The intrinsic variance of beauty judgment. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics. §25.5 §37.3 §45.4
  28. Prat-Carrabin, A., and Woodford, M. (2022). Efficient coding of numbers explains decision bias and noise. Nature Human Behaviour. §39.4 §45.2
  29. Pratiush, U., Roccapriore, K. M., Liu, Y., Duscher, G., Ziatdinov, M., and Kalinin, S. V. (2025). Building Workflows for Interactive Human in the Loop Automated Experiment (hAE) in STEM-EELS. Digital Discovery. doi:10.1039/d5dd00033e. §23.5 §36.7
  30. PREDICT-EPFL (2024). POP-BO. GitHub. software §31.1
  31. Previtali, D., Mazzoleni, M., Ferramosca, A., and Previdi, F. (2023). GLISp-r: a preference-based optimization algorithm with convergence guarantees. Computational Optimization and Applications. §27.3 §33.6
  32. ProbML (2026). Symposium on Probabilistic Machine Learning website. probml.cc. non-peer-reviewed §31.8
  33. Probst, P., Boulesteix, A.-L., and Bischl, B. (2019). Tunability: Importance of Hyperparameters of Machine Learning Algorithms. Journal of Machine Learning Research. §22.4 Ch. 22
  34. Procaccia, A. D., Schiffer, B., and Zhang, S. (2025). Clone-Robust AI Alignment. arXiv. preprint §40.7
  35. Pukdee, R., Balcan, M.-F., and Ravikumar, P. (2026). What Does Preference Learning Recover from Pairwise Comparison Data? ICML 2026. §18.5 §27.6 §36.6

Q

  1. Qiu, L., Sha, F., Allen, K., Kim, Y., Linzen, T., and van Steenkiste, S. (2026). Bayesian Teaching Enables Probabilistic Reasoning in Large Language Models. Nature Communications. doi:10.1038/s41467-025-67998-6. §35.2
  2. Qu, Z., Zhang, M., Kong, M., Li, X., Shang, Z., Wang, Z., … Dai, Z. (2026). T-POP: Test-Time Personalization with Online Preference Feedback. International Conference on Machine Learning. §35.3
  3. Quadt, T. (2026). DT-PBO-preprint. GitHub. software §31.1
  4. Quaife, M., Terris-Prestholt, F., Di Tanna, G. L., and Vickerman, P. (2018). How well do discrete choice experiments predict health choices? A systematic review and meta-analysis of external validity. The European Journal of Health Economics. §44.7 §44.9
  5. Quiñonero-Candela, J., and Rasmussen, C. E. (2005). A Unifying View of Sparse Approximate Gaussian Process Regression. Journal of Machine Learning Research. §8.4 §B.2
  6. Quintana, M., Gu, Y., Liang, X., Hou, Y., Ito, K., Zhu, Y., Abdelrahman, M., and Biljecki, F. (2025). Global urban visual perception varies across demographics and personalities. Nature Cities. §44.3 §44.9

R

  1. Rafailov, R., Sharma, A., Mitchell, E., Ermon, S., Manning, C. D., and Finn, C. (2023). Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Model. NeurIPS 2023. §26.4 §35.1 §35.4 §35.7 Ch. 35
  2. Rafailov, R., Chittepu, Y., Park, R., Sikchi, H., Hejna, J., Knox, B., Finn, C., and Niekum, S. (2024). Scaling Laws for Reward Model Overoptimization in Direct Alignment Algorithms. NeurIPS 2024. §36.1
  3. Rahimi, A., and Recht, B. (2007). Random Features for Large-Scale Kernel Machines. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 20 (NeurIPS 2007). §8.5 §10.4 Ch. 10 §12.5
  4. Rajagopalan, R., Dutta, D., Wei, Y.-L., and Roy Choudhury, R. (2026). Personalized Image Generation via Human-in-the-loop Bayesian Optimization. International Conference on Machine Learning. §32.1 §32.4 §35.6 §47.6
  5. Ramella, G., Ijspeert, A., and Bouri, M. (2025). Rapid Online Learning of Hip Exoskeleton Assistance Preferences. ICRA 2025. §33.1
  6. Ramos, M. C., Michtavy, S. S., Porosoff, M. D., and White, A. D. (2026). Bayesian Optimization of Catalysis With In-Context Learning. ACS Central Science. doi:10.1021/acscentsci.5c02418. §35.2
  7. Ran, W., Chen, H., Xia, T., Nishimura, Y., Guo, C., and Yin, Y. (2023). Online Personalized Preference Learning Method Based on In-Formative Query for Lane Centering Control Trajectory. Sensors. doi:10.3390/s23115246. §34.1
  8. Ranković, B., Griffiths, R.-R., and Schwaller, P. (2026). Large language models as uncertainty-calibrated optimizers for experimental discovery. Nature Machine Intelligence. doi:10.1038/s42256-026-01283-z. §23.5 Ch. 23 §30.6 §35.2
  9. Rasmussen, C. E., and Williams, C. K. I. (2006). Gaussian Processes for Machine Learning. MIT Press. Ch. 3 §4.3 §4.6 Ch. 4 §5.4 Ch. 5 §7.2 §7.3 §7.5 Ch. 7 §8.4 Ch. 8 §9.1 §9.2 §9.3 §9.4 §9.6 Ch. 9 §10.2 §10.3 §10.4 §10.6 Ch. 10 §17.1 §17.2 §17.3 Ch. 17 §18.2 §18.3 Ch. 18 §A.3 §B.2 Ch. B Ch. C
  10. Ratcliff, R. (1978). A theory of memory retrieval. Psychological Review. §39.3
  11. Recchia, G., Mangat, C. S., Nyachhyon, J., Sharma, M., Canavan, C., Epstein-Gross, D., and Abdulbari, M. (2026). Confirmation bias: A challenge for scalable oversight. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. doi:10.1609/aaai.v40i44.41124. §41.7
  12. Regenwetter, M., Dana, J., and Davis-Stober, C. P. (2011). Transitivity of preferences. Psychological Review. §37.4
  13. Rehren, P., and Sinnott-Armstrong, W. (2022). How Stable are Moral Judgments? Review of Philosophy and Psychology. doi:10.1007/s13164-022-00649-7. §38.5
  14. Reiter, A. M. F., Moutoussis, M., Vanes, L., Kievit, R., Bullmore, E. T., Goodyer, I. M., … Dolan, R. J. (2021). Preference uncertainty accounts for developmental effects on susceptibility to peer influence in adolescence. Nature Communications. §38.1
  15. Reitstätter, L., Brinkmann, H., Santini, T., Specker, E., Dare, Z., Bakondi, F., … Rosenberg, R. (2020). The display makes a difference: A mobile eye tracking study on the perception of art before and after a museum’s rearrangement. Journal of Eye Movement Research. §42.5
  16. Ren, Y., and Papalambros, P. Y. (2011). A Design Preference Elicitation Query as an Optimization Process. Journal of Mechanical Design. §44.4
  17. Reutskaja, E., Lindner, A., Nagel, R., Andersen, R. A., and Camerer, C. F. (2018). Choice overload reduces neural signatures of choice set value in dorsal striatum and anterior cingulate cortex. Nature Human Behaviour. §38.3
  18. Riggle, N. (2024). Autonomy and aesthetic valuing. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research. §41.5
  19. Robbins, H. (1952). Some Aspects of the Sequential Design of Experiments. Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society. §13.2
  20. Roberts, B. W., and DelVecchio, W. F. (2000). The rank-order consistency of personality traits from childhood to old age: A quantitative review of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin. §38.6
  21. Rodemann, J., Croppi, F., Arens, P., Sale, Y., Herbinger, J., Bischl, B., … Casalicchio, G. (2024). Explaining Bayesian Optimization by Shapley Values Facilitates Human-AI Collaboration. arXiv. preprint §32.7
  22. Rödl, M. B. (2022). Airoldi Massimo (2022) Machine Habitus: Toward a Sociology of Algorithms. Science & Technology Studies. §42.1
  23. Rodrigues, C., Vas, O., DCosta, I. A., and Prabhakaran, N. K. (2026). When Is an LLM Worth It for Hyperparameter Optimization? A Budget-Matched Study on Tabular Data Finds the Warm-Start Is a Default Configuration, Not the Model. arXiv. preprint §35.2
  24. Rogers, T., and Ponnada, S. (2026). Zero-shot Bayesian optimization with TabPFN: Competitive with state-of-the-art without per-task training. AutoML Conference 2026 (per Amazon Science page). §30.5
  25. Röseler, L., Weber, L., Helgerth, K. A. C., Stich, E., Günther, M., Tegethoff, P., Wagner, F. S., and Schütz, A. (2024). Measurements of Susceptibility to Anchoring are Unreliable: Meta-Analytic Evidence From More Than 50,000 Anchored Estimates. Meta-Psychology. §37.2
  26. Rotella, A., Jung, J., Chinn, C., and Barclay, P. (2026). Observation Moderates the Moral Licensing Effect: A Meta-Analytic Test of Interpersonal and Intrapsychic Mechanisms. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. §38.5 §38.13 Ch. 38 §45.2
  27. Roveda, L., Maggioni, B., Marescotti, E., Shahid, A. A., Maria Zanchettin, A., Bemporad, A., and Piga, D. (2021). Pairwise Preferences-Based Optimization of a Path-Based Velocity Planner in Robotic Sealing Tasks. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters. §33.6 §33.7
  28. Roy, B. (1968). Classement et choix en présence de points de vue multiples. Revue française d'informatique et de recherche opérationnelle. §40.10
  29. Ruggeri, K., Alí, S., Berge, M. L., Bertoldo, G., Bjørndal, L. D., Cortijos-Bernabeu, A., … Folke, T. (2020). Replicating patterns of prospect theory for decision under risk. Nature Human Behaviour. §40.1 §40.14
  30. Russo, D., and Van Roy, B. (2014). Learning to Optimize via Posterior Sampling. Mathematics of Operations Research. §12.5
  31. Russo, D. J., Van Roy, B., Kazerouni, A., Osband, I., and Wen, Z. (2018). A Tutorial on Thompson Sampling. Foundations and Trends in Machine Learning. Ch. 13
  32. Ruttan, R. L., and Nordgren, L. F. (2021). Instrumental use erodes sacred values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. §38.5
  33. Rychert, A., Spagnolo, G., and Posashkov, E. (2025). Reproducibility Study of Large Language Model Bayesian Optimization. arXiv. preprint §35.2

S

  1. Saad, E. M., Carpentier, A., Kocák, T., and Verzelen, N. (2024). On Weak Regret Analysis for Dueling Bandits. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. §29.7
  2. Saaty, T. L. (1977). A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. Journal of Mathematical Psychology. §40.10
  3. Sacks, J., Welch, W. J., Mitchell, T. J., and Wynn, H. P. (1989). Design and Analysis of Computer Experiments. Statistical Science. §11.5
  4. Sadigh, D., Dragan, A., Sastry, S., and Seshia, S. (2017). Active Preference-Based Learning of Reward Functions. Robotics: Science and Systems XIII. §33.6
  5. Šafárová, K., Pírko, M., Juřík, V., Pavlica, T., and Németh, O. (2019). Differences between young architects' and non-architects' aesthetic evaluation of buildings. Frontiers of Architectural Research. §44.2
  6. Saha, A. (2021). Optimal Algorithms for Stochastic Contextual Preference Bandits. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. §21.2 §21.5 §29.1 §29.11
  7. Saha, A., and Asi, H. (2024). DP-Dueling: Learning from Preference Feedback without Compromising User Privacy. arXiv. preprint §43.8
  8. Saha, A., and Gaillard, P. (2021). Dueling Bandits with Adversarial Sleeping. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. §29.7
  9. Saha, A., and Gaillard, P. (2022). Versatile Dueling Bandits: Best-of-both World Analyses for Learning from Relative Preferences. International Conference on Machine Learning. §21.2 §29.1 §29.7 §29.10 §29.11
  10. Saha, A., and Gopalan, A. (2019a). Combinatorial Bandits with Relative Feedback. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. §29.7
  11. Saha, A., and Gopalan, A. (2019b). PAC Battling Bandits in the Plackett-Luce Model. Algorithmic Learning Theory. §20.1 §29.7 §29.10 §29.11
  12. Saha, A., and Gopalan, A. (2020). From PAC to Instance-Optimal Sample Complexity in the Plackett-Luce Model. International Conference on Machine Learning. §29.7 §29.10
  13. Saha, A., and Gupta, S. (2022). Optimal and Efficient Dynamic Regret Algorithms for Non-Stationary Dueling Bandits. International Conference on Machine Learning. §29.10
  14. Saha, A., and Krishnamurthy, A. (2022). Efficient and Optimal Algorithms for Contextual Dueling Bandits under Realizability. International Conference on Algorithmic Learning Theory. §29.1
  15. Saha, A., Koren, T., and Mansour, Y. (2021a). Adversarial Dueling Bandits. International Conference on Machine Learning. §29.7
  16. Saha, A., Koren, T., and Mansour, Y. (2021b). Dueling Convex Optimization. International Conference on Machine Learning. §29.1
  17. Saha, A., Pacchiano, A., and Lee, J. (2023). Dueling RL: Reinforcement Learning with Trajectory Preferences. International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics. §36.1
  18. Saha, A., Feldman, V., Mansour, Y., and Koren, T. (2024). Faster Convergence with MultiWay Preferences. International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics. §29.7
  19. Saha, A., Koren, T., and Mansour, Y. (2025). Dueling Convex Optimization with General Preferences. International Conference on Machine Learning. §29.1
  20. Sajid, N., Ball, P. J., Parr, T., and Friston, K. J. (2021). Active Inference: Demystified and Compared. Neural Computation. §39.5
  21. Sakai, T., and Zeng, Z. (2020). Good Evaluation Measures based on Document Preferences. Proceedings of the 43rd International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. §42.4
  22. Salgia, S., Vakili, S., and Zhao, Q. (2021). A Domain-Shrinking based Bayesian Optimization Algorithm with Order-Optimal Regret Performance. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. §21.4 §29.4
  23. Sanderson, G. (2016). Essence of Linear Algebra. Video series, 3Blue1Brown. non-peer-reviewed Ch. 3
  24. Sandholtz, N., Miyamoto, Y., Bornn, L., and Smith, M. (2023). Inverse Bayesian Optimization: Learning Human Acquisition Functions in an Exploration vs Exploitation Search Task. Bayesian Analysis. doi:10.1214/21-BA1303. §32.7
  25. Sándor, Z., and Wedel, M. (2002). Profile Construction in Experimental Choice Designs for Mixed Logit Models. Marketing Science. §40.9
  26. SÁndor, Z., and Wedel, M. (2001). Designing Conjoint Choice Experiments Using Managers' Prior Beliefs. Journal of Marketing Research. §40.9
  27. Sankagiri, S., Etesami, J., Fatemi, P., and Grossglauser, M. (2026). Recycling History: Efficient Recommendations from Contextual Dueling Bandits. Algorithmic Learning Theory. §34.3
  28. Santin, G., and Schaback, R. (2016). Approximation of Eigenfunctions in Kernel-Based Spaces. Advances in Computational Mathematics. §10.5
  29. Santurkar, S., Durmus, E., Ladhak, F., Lee, C., Liang, P., and Hashimoto, T. (2023). Whose Opinions Do Language Models Reflect? International Conference on Machine Learning. §41.8
  30. Saracay, I., Schmidt, L., and Guestrin, C. (2026). Beyond expert users: agents should help users construct preferences, not just elicit them. Conference on Language Modeling (COLM 2026). §32.9 §35.2
  31. Satterthwaite, M. A. (1975). Strategy-proofness and Arrow's conditions: Existence and correspondence theorems for voting procedures and social welfare functions. Journal of Economic Theory. §40.7
  32. Sauré, D., and Vielma, J. P. (2019). Ellipsoidal Methods for Adaptive Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis. Operations Research. §40.9 §46.9
  33. Savage, L. J. (1954). The Foundations of Statistics. Wiley. §40.8
  34. Sawarni, A., Sarmasarkar, S., and Syrgkanis, V. (2025). Preference Learning with Response Time: Robust Losses and Guarantees. NeurIPS. §39.3 §39.9 Ch. 39 §46.2
  35. Scarlett, J., Bogunovic, I., and Cevher, V. (2017). Lower Bounds on Regret for Noisy Gaussian Process Bandit Optimization. Conference on Learning Theory. §10.5 §13.4 §21.4 §21.5 Ch. 21 §29.4 §29.7 Ch. 29
  36. Schäfer, N., Zhao, G., Li, B., Kupnik, M., Seyfarth, A., Beckerle, P., and Grimmer, M. (2026). User preference-based human-in-the-loop tuning of exoskeleton assistance during walking. npj Biomedical Innovations. doi:10.1038/s44385-026-00085-7. §24.1 §24.2 §24.3 §24.5 Ch. 24 §26.5 §26.8 §33.1 §33.3 §33.7 Ch. 33 §39.7 §45.1 §46.9 Ch. 46 §47.3 §47.6 Ch. 47
  37. Scheibehenne, B., Greifeneder, R., and Todd, P. M. (2010). Can There Ever Be Too Many Options? A Meta-Analytic Review of Choice Overload. Journal of Consumer Research. §38.3
  38. Scheid, A., Boursier, E., Durmus, A., Jordan, M. I., Ménard, P., Moulines, E., and Valko, M. (2024). Optimal Design for Reward Modeling in RLHF. arXiv. preprint §35.3
  39. Schildberg-Hörisch, H. (2018). Are Risk Preferences Stable? Journal of Economic Perspectives. §42.1
  40. Schoinas, E., Rastogi, A., Carter, A., Granley, J., and Beyeler, M. (2025). Evaluating Deep Human-in-the-Loop Optimization for Retinal Implants Using Sighted Participants. 2025 47th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC). doi:10.1109/embc58623.2025.11253762. §25.5 §31.7 §31.8 Ch. 31 §32.3 §33.5 §33.7 Ch. 33 §35.2 §45.1 §46.7
  41. Schooler, J. W., and Engstler-Schooler, T. Y. (1990). Verbal overshadowing of visual memories: Some things are better left unsaid. Cognitive Psychology. §42.3
  42. Schuck-Paim, C., Pompilio, L., and Kacelnik, A. (2004). State-Dependent Decisions Cause Apparent Violations of Rationality in Animal Choice. PLoS Biology. §43.1
  43. Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the Content and Structure of Values: Theoretical Advances and Empirical Tests in 20 Countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. §38.2
  44. Schwarz, N., and Clore, G. L. (1983). Mood, misattribution, and judgments of well-being: Informative and directive functions of affective states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. §38.4
  45. ScienceDaily (2022). People around the world like the same kinds of smell. ScienceDaily. non-peer-reviewed §42.1
  46. scikit-optimize contributors (2024). scikit-optimize 0.10.2. PyPI; the GitHub repository is archived. software §14.8
  47. Secondmind Labs (2026). trieste 4.6.0. PyPI. software §14.8 §31.1
  48. Sekhari, A., Sridharan, K., Sun, W., and Wu, R. (2023). Contextual Bandits and Imitation Learning with Preference-Based Active Queries. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. §29.1
  49. Selinger, J. C., and Donelan, J. M. (2014). Estimating instantaneous energetic cost during non-steady-state gait. Journal of Applied Physiology. §24.1 Ch. 24
  50. Semantic Scholar (2026). Bulk search: "preferential bayesian optimization". Semantic Scholar API. non-peer-reviewed §31.8
  51. Seshadri, P., Cahyawijaya, S., Odumakinde, A., Singh, S., and Goldfarb-Tarrant, S. (2026). Lost in Simulation: LLM-Simulated Users are Unreliable Proxies for Human Users in Agentic Evaluations. Proceedings of the 64th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers). doi:10.18653/v1/2026.acl-long.2192. §35.2
  52. Settles, B. (2009). Active Learning Literature Survey. University of Wisconsin–Madison. non-peer-reviewed §15.8 Ch. 15
  53. Sfikas, K., Liapis, A., and Yannakakis, G. N. (2023). Controllable Exploration of a Design Space via Interactive Quality Diversity. arXiv (parts published at GECCO 2023). preprint §36.8
  54. Shafir, S. (1994). Intransitivity of preferences in honey bees: support for 'comparative' evaluation of foraging options. Animal Behaviour. §43.1
  55. Shah, N. B., Balakrishnan, S., Bradley, J., Parekh, A., Ramchandran, K., and Wainwright, M. (2014). When is it Better to Compare than to Score? arXiv. preprint §16.1 Ch. 16 §43.5
  56. Shah, N. B., Balakrishnan, S., Bradley, J., Parekh, A., Ramchandran, K., and Wainwright, M. J. (2016). Estimation from Pairwise Comparisons: Sharp Minimax Bounds with Topology Dependence. Journal of Machine Learning Research. §16.6 Ch. 16 §18.5 Ch. 18 §36.6 §36.10 §43.3 §43.5 Ch. 43 §45.2 Ch. 45 §46.4
  57. Shahriari, B., Swersky, K., Wang, Z., Adams, R. P., and de Freitas, N. (2016). Taking the Human Out of the Loop: A Review of Bayesian Optimization. Proceedings of the IEEE. Ch. 1 Ch. 11 Ch. 15
  58. Shalizi, C. R., and Thomas, A. C. (2011). Homophily and Contagion Are Generically Confounded in Observational Social Network Studies. Sociological Methods & Research. §42.2 §43.7
  59. Shannon, C. E. (1948). A Mathematical Theory of Communication. Bell System Technical Journal. Ch. 6 Ch. 6
  60. Shao, K., Chakrabarty, A., Mesbah, A., and Romeres, D. (2024). Coactive Preference-Guided Multi-Objective Bayesian Optimization: An Application to Policy Learning in Personalized Plasma Medicine. IEEE Control Systems Letters. §33.6
  61. Shao, K., Wang, J., Pei, X., and Mesbah, A. (2026). Adaptive KappaSharp: Condition-Number Shaping for Preferential Bayesian Optimization. arXiv. preprint §18.5 §19.6 Ch. 19 §26.5 §26.8 §27.6 §28.3 §28.4 §28.5 §31.4 §31.8 §36.6 §45.1 §46.4 §47.3
  62. Shapiro, S. L., Carlson, L. E., Astin, J. A., and Freedman, B. (2006). Mechanisms of mindfulness. Journal of Clinical Psychology. §41.9
  63. Sharma, M., Tong, M., Korbak, T., Duvenaud, D., Askell, A., Bowman, S. R., … Perez, E. (2024). Towards Understanding Sycophancy in Language Models. ICLR 2024. §36.2
  64. SheffieldML (2023). GPyOpt (archived). GitHub. software §14.8 §31.1
  65. Shen, J., Hu, J., Dudley, J. J., and Kristensson, P. O. (2022). Personalization of a Mid-Air Gesture Keyboard using Multi-Objective Bayesian Optimization. 2022 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR). doi:10.1109/ismar55827.2022.00088. §32.1 §32.5
  66. Shen, Y., Sun, H., and Ton, J.-F. (2025a). Active Reward Modeling: Adaptive Preference Labeling for Large Language Model Alignment. International Conference on Machine Learning. §35.3
  67. Shen, B., Nguyen, D., Wilson, J., Glimcher, P. W., and Louie, K. (2025b). Early versus late noise differentially enhances or degrades context-dependent choice. Nature Communications. doi:10.1038/s41467-025-59140-3. §39.4 §41.4 §45.4 §46.2
  68. Shepherd, M. K., Azocar, A. F., Major, M. J., and Rouse, E. J. (2018). Amputee perception of prosthetic ankle stiffness during locomotion. Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation. §37.3 §39.7
  69. Shevlin, B. R. K., Smith, S. M., Hausfeld, J., and Krajbich, I. (2022). High-value decisions are fast and accurate, inconsistent with diminishing value sensitivity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. §37.3 §39.3 §39.9 Ch. 39 §45.2 §46.2
  70. Shi, L., Ma, C., Liang, W., Diao, X., Ma, W., and Vosoughi, S. (2025). Judging the Judges: A Systematic Study of Position Bias in LLM-as-a-Judge. Proceedings of the 14th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing and the 4th Conference of the Asia-Pacific Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics. §35.2
  71. Shields, B. J. (2021). EDBO: Experimental Design via Bayesian Optimization. GitHub repository, MIT License; direct arylation data in experiments/data/direct_arylation, commit 9b41eac. software Ch. 23 Ch. 23
  72. Shields, B. J., and Li, J. (2020). EvML: Expert versus Machine Learning. GitHub repository, MIT License; reaction optimization game records and analysis, commit 9fb4655. software Ch. 23 §23.3 §23.4 Ch. 23
  73. Shields, B. J., Stevens, J., Li, J., Parasram, M., Damani, F., Alvarado, J. I. M., … Doyle, A. G. (2021). Bayesian reaction optimization as a tool for chemical synthesis. Nature. §11.1 §15.1 §15.3 Ch. 15 Ch. 23 §23.1 §23.2 §23.3 §23.4 Ch. 23 §36.7 §36.10 §47.6
  74. Shiv, B., and Fedorikhin, A. (1999). Heart and Mind in Conflict: the Interplay of Affect and Cognition in Consumer Decision Making. Journal of Consumer Research. §37.2
  75. Shu, L. L., Mazar, N., Gino, F., Ariely, D., and Bazerman, M. H. (2012). RETRACTED: Signing at the beginning makes ethics salient and decreases dishonest self-reports in comparison to signing at the end. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. §38.5
  76. Shukla, A., and Basu, D. (2024). Preference-based Pure Exploration. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. §29.10
  77. Shvartsman, M., Letham, B., Bakshy, E., and Keeley, S. (2024). Response Time Improves Gaussian Process Models for Perception and Preferences. Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence. §17.4 §27.1 §27.2 Ch. 27 §29.10 §39.3 Ch. 39 §45.1 §46.2 §47.3 §47.6
  78. Siivola, E. (2021). Applications of human feedback in Gaussian processes. Aalto University. thesis §31.8
  79. Siivola, E., Vehtari, A., Vanhatalo, J., González, J., and Andersen, M. R. (2018). Correcting Boundary Over-Exploration Deficiencies in Bayesian Optimization with Virtual Derivative Sign Observations. 2018 IEEE 28th International Workshop on Machine Learning for Signal Processing (MLSP). §22.3 §22.4
  80. Siivola, E., Dhaka, A. K., Andersen, M. R., González, J., García Moreno, P., and Vehtari, A. (2021). Preferential Batch Bayesian Optimization. IEEE MLSP 2021. §20.1 §20.3 Ch. 20 §27.2 §28.1 §28.5 §28.6 §28.9 §31.4 §31.6 §31.8 §46.9
  81. Silver, A. M., Stahl, A. E., Loiotile, R., Smith-Flores, A. S., and Feigenson, L. (2020). When Not Choosing Leads to Not Liking: Choice-Induced Preference in Infancy. Psychological Science. §38.1 §38.13
  82. Simonson, I. (1989). Choice Based on Reasons: The Case of Attraction and Compromise Effects. Journal of Consumer Research. §37.2
  83. Simpson, E., and Gurevych, I. (2020). Scalable Bayesian preference learning for crowds. Machine Learning. §17.4 §20.5 Ch. 20 §27.2
  84. Sims, C. A. (2003). Implications of rational inattention. Journal of Monetary Economics. §39.4 §40.5
  85. Sinaga, M. A., Martinelli, J., and Kaski, S. (2026). Anchor-Based Heteroscedastic Noise for Preferential Bayesian Optimization. Symposium on Probabilistic Machine Learning (ProbML 2026), Proceedings Track. §27.2 §28.3 §31.8
  86. Singh, U., Chakraborty, S., Suttle, W. A., Sadler, B. M., Asher, D. E., Sahu, A. K., … Bedi, A. S. (2024). Direct Preference Optimization for Primitive-Enabled Hierarchical RL: A Bilevel Approach. International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR 2026). §36.8
  87. Siththaranjan, A., Laidlaw, C., and Hadfield-Menell, D. (2024). Distributional Preference Learning: Understanding and Accounting for Hidden Context in RLHF. ICLR 2024. §20.5 Ch. 20 §21.1 §29.9 Ch. 29 §35.4 Ch. 35 §40.7 §40.14 §41.3 §42.5 §45.1
  88. Skalse, J., Howe, N. H. R., Krasheninnikov, D., and Krueger, D. (2022). Defining and Characterizing Reward Hacking. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35 (NeurIPS 2022). §36.2
  89. Skalse, J., Farrugia-Roberts, M., Russell, S., Abate, A., and Gleave, A. (2023). Invariance in Policy Optimisation and Partial Identifiability in Reward Learning. ICML 2023. §36.8
  90. Slade, P., Kochenderfer, M. J., Delp, S. L., and Collins, S. H. (2022). Personalizing exoskeleton assistance while walking in the real world. Nature. §24.1 §24.2 §24.3 §33.1
  91. Slade, P., Atkeson, C., Donelan, J. M., Houdijk, H., Ingraham, K. A., Kim, M., … Collins, S. H. (2024). On human-in-the-loop optimization of human–robot interaction. Nature. §33.1
  92. Slingerland, E. (2003). Effortless Action: Wu-wei as Conceptual Metaphor and Spiritual Ideal in Early China. Oxford University Press. §41.9
  93. Slovic, P. (1995). The construction of preference. American Psychologist. §37.2
  94. Smeele, N. V., van Cranenburgh, S., Donkers, B., Schermer, M. H., and de Bekker-Grob, E. W. (2025). Taboo trade-off aversion in choice behaviors: A discrete choice model and application to health-related decisions. Social Science & Medicine. §38.5
  95. Smith, S. M., and Krajbich, I. (2019). Gaze Amplifies Value in Decision Making. Psychological Science. §37.3
  96. Smith, J. E., and Winkler, R. L. (2006). The Optimizer’s Curse: Skepticism and Postdecision Surprise in Decision Analysis. Management Science. §36.2
  97. Smith, M. A., Ghazizadeh, A., and Shadmehr, R. (2006). Interacting Adaptive Processes with Different Timescales Underlie Short-Term Motor Learning. PLoS Biology. §39.7
  98. Snoek, J., Larochelle, H., and Adams, R. P. (2012). Practical Bayesian Optimization of Machine Learning Algorithms. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 25 (NeurIPS 2012). §1.3 §3.1 §4.5 §7.5 §9.2 §9.4 Ch. 9 §11.1 §11.3 §11.4 §11.5 Ch. 11 §12.3 Ch. 14 §14.1 §14.3 §14.7 Ch. 14 §15.2 Ch. 22 §22.3 §22.4 §22.5 Ch. 22
  99. Snoek, J., Swersky, K., Zemel, R., and Adams, R. (2014). Input Warping for Bayesian Optimization of Non-Stationary Functions. International Conference on Machine Learning. §14.1
  100. Snoek, J., Rippel, O., Swersky, K., Kiros, R., Satish, N., Sundaram, N., … Adams, R. P. (2015). Scalable Bayesian Optimization Using Deep Neural Networks. Proceedings of the 32nd International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML 2015). §5.4
  101. Sobol', I. M. (1967). On the Distribution of Points in a Cube and the Approximate Evaluation of Integrals. USSR Computational Mathematics and Mathematical Physics. §11.4
  102. Søgaard Jensen, N., Hau, O., Bagger Nielsen, J. B., Bundgaard Nielsen, T., and Vase Legarth, S. (2019). Perceptual Effects of Adjusting Hearing-Aid Gain by Means of a Machine-Learning Approach Based on Individual User Preference. Trends in Hearing. doi:10.1177/2331216519847413. §32.5 §33.4 §33.7 Ch. 33 §34.4
  103. Son, S., Bankes, W., Chowdhury, S. R., Paige, B., and Bogunovic, I. (2025). Right Now, Wrong Then: Non-Stationary Direct Preference Optimization under Preference Drift. International Conference on Machine Learning. §29.10
  104. Song, Y., Swamy, G., Singh, A., Bagnell, J. A., and Sun, W. (2024). The Importance of Online Data: Understanding Preference Fine-tuning via Coverage. NeurIPS 2024. §35.4
  105. Song, Y., Gebhardt, C., Liao, Y.-C., and Holz, C. (2025). Preference-Guided Multi-Objective UI Adaptation. Proceedings of the 38th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. doi:10.1145/3746059.3747645. §32.1 §32.2 §32.3
  106. Soon, C. S., Brass, M., Heinze, H.-J., and Haynes, J.-D. (2008). Unconscious determinants of free decisions in the human brain. Nature Neuroscience. §41.6
  107. Sorensen, T., Moore, J., Fisher, J., Gordon, M., Mireshghallah, N., Rytting, C. M., … Choi, Y. (2024). Position: A Roadmap to Pluralistic Alignment. International Conference on Machine Learning. §41.3
  108. Spektor, M. S., Kellen, D., and Hotaling, J. M. (2018). When the Good Looks Bad: An Experimental Exploration of the Repulsion Effect. Psychological Science. §16.4 §37.2
  109. Spektor, M. S., Bhatia, S., and Gluth, S. (2021). The elusiveness of context effects in decision making. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. §16.4 §37.2 Ch. 37
  110. Spence, C. (2020). Wine psychology: basic & applied. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications. §44.5
  111. Srinivas, N., Krause, A., Kakade, S. M., and Seeger, M. (2010). Gaussian Process Optimization in the Bandit Setting: No Regret and Experimental Design. ICML 2010. §6.5 Ch. 6 §10.2 §10.5 §10.6 §11.5 §12.4 §12.9 Ch. 12 §13.1 §13.2 §13.4 §13.5 §13.6 Ch. 13 §A.3
  112. Stacey, D., Lewis, K. B., Smith, M., Carley, M., Volk, R., Douglas, E. E., … Trevena, L. (2024). Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. §44.7 §44.9 Ch. 44
  113. Stango, V., and Zinman, J. (2024). Behavioral Biases Are Temporally Stable. Working paper (author's website). working paper §45.3
  114. Stein, M. L. (1999). Interpolation of Spatial Data: Some Theory for Kriging. Springer. §7.5 Ch. 7 Ch. 9
  115. Steinwart, I., and Christmann, A. (2008). Support Vector Machines. Springer. §10.2 §10.3 Ch. 10
  116. Stevens, S. S. (1957). On the Psychophysical Law. Psychological Review. §16.2 Ch. 16 §37.3
  117. Stewart, N., Chater, N., and Brown, G. D. (2006). Decision by sampling. Cognitive Psychology. §37.3
  118. Strang, G. (2016). Introduction to Linear Algebra. Wellesley-Cambridge Press. §3.4 Ch. 3
  119. Strang, A., Abbott, K. C., and Thomas, P. J. (2022). The Network HHD: Quantifying Cyclic Competition in Trait-Performance Models of Tournaments. SIAM Review. §43.3 Ch. 43 §45.2 Ch. 45
  120. Strohminger, N., Knobe, J., and Newman, G. (2017). The True Self: A Psychological Concept Distinct From the Self. Perspectives on Psychological Science. §41.4
  121. Strzalecki, T. (2025). Stochastic Choice Theory. Cambridge University Press. Ch. 40
  122. Sui, Y., Gotovos, A., Burdick, J., and Krause, A. (2015). Safe Exploration for Optimization with Gaussian Processes. Proceedings of the 32nd International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML 2015). §14.4
  123. Sui, Y., Yue, Y., and Burdick, J. W. (2017a). Correlational Dueling Bandits with Application to Clinical Treatment in Large Decision Spaces. IJCAI 2017. §21.2 §33.5
  124. Sui, Y., Zhuang, V., Burdick, J. W., and Yue, Y. (2017b). Multi-dueling Bandits with Dependent Arms. UAI 2017. §21.2 §21.4 §26.2 §26.8 §28.1 §28.5 §29.1 §29.4
  125. Sui, Y., Zoghi, M., Hofmann, K., and Yue, Y. (2018a). Advancements in Dueling Bandits. Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. doi:10.24963/ijcai.2018/776. §21.1 §21.2 §21.4 Ch. 21 §26.2 Ch. 26 §29.1 Ch. 29
  126. Sui, Y., Zhuang, V., Burdick, J., and Yue, Y. (2018b). Stagewise Safe Bayesian Optimization with Gaussian Processes. International Conference on Machine Learning. §14.4 §26.2 §28.7 §28.8 §32.10 §33.5 §47.6
  127. Suk, J., and Agarwal, A. (2023). When Can We Track Significant Preference Shifts in Dueling Bandits? Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. §29.8 §29.10
  128. Sun, L., Ma, H., An, H., and Wei, Q. (2024). An Individual Prosthesis Control Method with Human Subjective Choices. Biomimetics. doi:10.3390/biomimetics9020077. §33.2
  129. Sun, H., Shen, Y., and Ton, J.-F. (2025). Rethinking Bradley-Terry Models in Preference-Based Reward Modeling: Foundations, Theory, and Alternatives. ICLR 2025. §35.4 §35.7 §39.1
  130. Sundin, I., Voronov, A., Xiao, H., Papadopoulos, K., Bjerrum, E. J., Heinonen, M., … Engkvist, O. (2022). Human-in-the-loop assisted de novo molecular design. Journal of Cheminformatics. doi:10.1186/s13321-022-00667-8. §34.2
  131. Surana, R., Li, X., Yu, S., Shen, Y. J., Wang, C., Yu, T., … Wu, J. (2026). MASS-DPO: Multi-negative Active Sample Selection for Direct Policy Optimization. arXiv. preprint §35.3
  132. Susak, J., Liu, Y., Jansen, P., and Colley, M. (2026). ProVoice: Designing Proactive Functionality for In-Vehicle Conversational Assistants using Multi-Objective Bayesian Optimization to Enhance Driver Experience. Proceedings of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. doi:10.1145/3772318.3791877. §32.1
  133. Susser, D., Roessler, B., and Nissenbaum, H. (2019). Technology, autonomy, and manipulation. Internet Policy Review. §41.2
  134. Sutton, R. S., and Barto, A. G. (2018). Reinforcement Learning: An Introduction. MIT Press. §15.8 Ch. 15
  135. Swersky, K., Snoek, J., and Adams, R. P. (2013). Multi-Task Bayesian Optimization. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 26 (NeurIPS 2013). §14.7

T

  1. Taddei, S., Koppen, W., Alfio, E., Nuzzo, S., Flynn, L., Diaz, M. A., … Verstraten, T. (2026). Bayesian Preference Elicitation: Human-In-The-Loop Optimization of An Active Prosthesis. arXiv. preprint §31.7 §33.2 §45.4 §46.9
  2. Takagi, H. (2001). Interactive evolutionary computation: fusion of the capabilities of EC optimization and human evaluation. Proceedings of the IEEE. §15.8 §36.5
  3. Takagi, H., and Pallez, D. (2009). Paired Comparisons-based Interactive Differential Evolution. NaBIC 2009. §36.5
  4. Takeno, S., Nomura, M., and Karasuyama, M. (2022). Preferential Bayesian Optimization with Hallucination Believer. NeurIPS 2022 Workshop on Gaussian Processes, Spatiotemporal Modeling, and Decision-making Systems. workshop paper §31.8
  5. Takeno, S., Nomura, M., and Karasuyama, M. (2023). Towards Practical Preferential Bayesian Optimization with Skew Gaussian Processes. International Conference on Machine Learning. §17.2 §17.3 §17.5 §17.7 Ch. 17 §18.6 §19.3 §19.6 Ch. 19 §26.4 §27.4 Ch. 27 §28.2 §28.4 §28.5 §28.9 Ch. 28 §31.4 §31.8 §36.6 §46.3 §47.3
  6. Tanaka, M., Ono, K., and Yamada, S. (2026). Human-in-the-Loop Bayesian Optimization Approach to Supporting Early-Stage Architectural Design. CAADRIA proceedings. doi:10.52842/conf.caadria.2026.1.347. §32.1 §32.2 §32.9
  7. Tang, Y., Guo, Z. D., Zheng, Z., Calandriello, D., Munos, R., Rowland, M., … Piot, B. (2024). Generalized Preference Optimization: A Unified Approach to Offline Alignment. International Conference on Machine Learning. §35.1 §35.4
  8. Tang, M., Zhou, Y., and Huang, C. (2025). Tackling Biased Evaluators in Dueling Bandits. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 38. doi:10.52202/085713-2520. §29.10
  9. Tasnim, N. Z., Ni, A., Lobarinas, E., and Kehtarnavaz, N. (2024). A Review of Machine Learning Approaches for the Personalization of Amplification in Hearing Aids. Sensors. doi:10.3390/s24051546. §33.4
  10. Tatsukawa, Y., Shen, I.-C., Dogan, M. D., Qi, A., Koyama, Y., Shamir, A., and Igarashi, T. (2025). FontCraft: Multimodal Font Design Using Interactive Bayesian Optimization. CHI 2025. §27.3 §32.1 §32.2 §32.6 §32.9
  11. Taya, F., Gupta, S., Farber, I., and Mullette-Gillman, O. A. (2014). Manipulation Detection and Preference Alterations in a Choice Blindness Paradigm. PLoS ONE. §41.4 §41.12
  12. Tessler, M. H., Bakker, M. A., Jarrett, D., Sheahan, H., Chadwick, M. J., Koster, R., … Summerfield, C. (2024). AI can help humans find common ground in democratic deliberation. Science. §42.2
  13. Tetlock, P. E., Kristel, O. V., Elson, S. B., Green, M. C., and Lerner, J. S. (2000). The psychology of the unthinkable: Taboo trade-offs, forbidden base rates, and heretical counterfactuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. §38.5
  14. Thalmayer, A. G., Toscanelli, C., and Arnett, J. J. (2021). The neglected 95% revisited: Is American psychology becoming less American? American Psychologist. §42.1
  15. Theiner, L., Hirt, S., Steinke, A., and Findeisen, R. (2025). Exploiting Prior Knowledge in Preferential Learning of Individualized Autonomous Vehicle Driving Styles. ECC 2025. §31.8 §34.1
  16. Theiner, L., Pfefferkorn, M., Zhao, Y., Hirt, S., and Findeisen, R. (2026). Efficient Controller Learning from Human Preferences and Numerical Data Via Multi-Modal Surrogate Models. European Control Conference. §28.7 §31.8 §34.1
  17. Thies, S. M. A. R., Bengs, V., Kaufmann, T., Vollmer, S. J., and Hüllermeier, E. (2026a). Calibrated Preference Learning: The Case of Label Ranking. International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML 2026). §35.5 §36.6
  18. Thies, S. M. A. R., Alfaro, J. C., and Bengs, V. (2026b). MORE-PLR: multi-output regression employed for partial label ranking. Machine Learning 115. §36.6
  19. Thoma, J. (2021). In defence of revealed preference theory. Economics and Philosophy. §41.1
  20. Thoma, J. (2024). Reply to Hausman. Economics and Philosophy. §41.1
  21. Thomas, P., Spielman, S., Craswell, N., and Mitra, B. (2024). Large Language Models can Accurately Predict Searcher Preferences. Proceedings of the 47th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. §42.4
  22. Thompson, W. R. (1933). On the Likelihood that One Unknown Probability Exceeds Another in View of the Evidence of Two Samples. Biometrika. §5.2 Ch. 5 §11.5 §12.5 §13.2
  23. Thornton, C., Hutter, F., Hoos, H. H., and Leyton-Brown, K. (2013). Auto-WEKA: Combined Selection and Hyperparameter Optimization of Classification Algorithms. Proceedings of the 19th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD 2013). §15.2
  24. Thurstone, L. L. (1927). A Law of Comparative Judgment. Psychological Review. §16.1 §16.3 Ch. 16
  25. Tierney, L., and Kadane, J. B. (1986). Accurate Approximations for Posterior Moments and Marginal Densities. Journal of the American Statistical Association. §17.2 Ch. 17
  26. Ting, C.-C., and Gluth, S. (2025). High overall values mitigate gaze-related effects in perceptual and preferential choices. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. §39.3
  27. Titsias, M. (2009). Variational Learning of Inducing Variables in Sparse Gaussian Processes. Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics (AISTATS 2009). §8.4 §17.4
  28. Toubia, O., Simester, D. I., Hauser, J. R., and Dahan, E. (2003). Fast Polyhedral Adaptive Conjoint Estimation. Marketing Science. §40.9
  29. Toubia, O., Hauser, J. R., and Simester, D. I. (2004). Polyhedral Methods for Adaptive Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis. Journal of Marketing Research. §40.9
  30. Toubia, O., Hauser, J., and Garcia, R. (2007). Probabilistic Polyhedral Methods for Adaptive Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis: Theory and Application. Marketing Science. §40.9
  31. Tsoleridis, P., Choudhury, C. F., and Hess, S. (2023). Probabilistic choice set formation incorporating activity spaces into the context of mode and destination choice modelling. Journal of Transport Geography. §42.5
  32. Tucker, M. (2023). Enabling Robust and User-Customized Bipedal Locomotion on Lower-Body Assistive Devices via Hybrid System Theory and Preference-Based Learning. California Institute of Technology. doi:10.7907/j9hk-xa17. thesis §31.8 §33.1
  33. Tucker, M. (2024). POLAR. GitHub. software §31.1
  34. Tucker, M., Cheng, M., Novoseller, E., Cheng, R., Yue, Y., Burdick, J. W., and Ames, A. D. (2020a). Human Preference-Based Learning for High-dimensional Optimization of Exoskeleton Walking Gaits. IROS 2020. §20.3 §20.5 §24.2 Ch. 24 §26.3 §28.6 §28.7 §30.4 §31.8 §33.1 Ch. 33
  35. Tucker, M., Novoseller, E., Kann, C., Sui, Y., Yue, Y., Burdick, J. W., and Ames, A. D. (2020b). Preference-Based Learning for Exoskeleton Gait Optimization. 2020 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). §20.3 §21.2 §24.2 Ch. 24 §26.3 §28.6 §31.8 §33.1
  36. Tucker, M., Csomay-Shanklin, N., Ma, W.-L., and Ames, A. D. (2021). Preference-Based Learning for User-Guided HZD Gait Generation on Bipedal Walking Robots. ICRA 2021. §33.6
  37. Tucker, M., Li, K., Yue, Y., and Ames, A. D. (2022). POLAR: Preference Optimization and Learning Algorithms for Robotics. arXiv. preprint §31.8 §33.6
  38. Turner, R., Eriksson, D., McCourt, M., Kiili, J., Laaksonen, E., Xu, Z., and Guyon, I. (2021). Bayesian Optimization is Superior to Random Search for Machine Learning Hyperparameter Tuning: Analysis of the Black-Box Optimization Challenge 2020. NeurIPS 2020 Competition and Demonstration Track. §15.2 §22.5 Ch. 22
  39. Tversky, A. (1969). Intransitivity of preferences. Psychological Review. §37.4
  40. Tversky, A. (1972). Elimination by aspects: A theory of choice. Psychological Review. §37.2
  41. Tversky, A., and Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Science. §37.2
  42. Tversky, A., and Kahneman, D. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty. §40.1

U

  1. Upadhyay, S., Pradeep, R., Thakur, N., Campos, D., Craswell, N., Soboroff, I., Dang, H. T., and Lin, J. (2024). A Large-Scale Study of Relevance Assessments with Large Language Models: An Initial Look. arXiv. preprint §42.4
  2. Urvoy, T., Clerot, F., F\'eraud, R., and Naamane, S. (2013). Generic Exploration and K-armed Voting Bandits. Proceedings of the 30th International Conference on Machine Learning. §21.1

V

  1. Vaidis, D. C., Sleegers, W. W. A., van Leeuwen, F., DeMarree, K. G., Sætrevik, B., Ross, R. M., … Priolo, D. (2024). A Multilab Replication of the Induced-Compliance Paradigm of Cognitive Dissonance. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science. §38.1 §38.13 §45.2
  2. Vakili, S., Khezeli, K., and Picheny, V. (2021a). On Information Gain and Regret Bounds in Gaussian Process Bandits. International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics. §6.5 §10.5 Ch. 10 §13.4 §13.5 §21.4 §29.4 Ch. 29
  3. Vakili, S., Scarlett, J., and Javidi, T. (2021b). Open Problem: Tight Online Confidence Intervals for RKHS Elements. Conference on Learning Theory. §21.4 §29.4
  4. Vanier, A., Oort, F. J., McClimans, L., Ow, N., Gulek, B. G., Böhnke, J. R., … the Response Shift - in Sync Working Group (2021). Response shift in patient-reported outcomes: definition, theory, and a revised model. Quality of Life Research. §44.7
  5. Varga, S., and Guignon, C. (2020). Authenticity. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. non-peer-reviewed §41.4
  6. Vayanos, P., Ye, Y., McElfresh, D., Dickerson, J., and Rice, E. (2020). Robust Active Preference Elicitation. arXiv (journal version not found). preprint §36.3
  7. Vecchione, M., Schwartz, S. H., Davidov, E., Cieciuch, J., Alessandri, G., and Marsicano, G. (2020). Stability and change of basic personal values in early adolescence: A 2‐year longitudinal study. Journal of Personality. §38.2 §45.3 §47.1
  8. Veldwijk, J., Smith, I. P., Oliveri, S., Petrocchi, S., Smith, M. Y., Lanzoni, L., … Groothuis-Oudshoorn, C. G. M. (2024). Comparing Discrete Choice Experiment with Swing Weighting to Estimate Attribute Relative Importance: A Case Study in Lung Cancer Patient Preferences. Medical Decision Making. §44.7
  9. Vendrov, I., Lu, T., Huang, Q., and Boutilier, C. (2020). Gradient-based Optimization for Bayesian Preference Elicitation. AAAI 2020. §36.3
  10. Verma, A., Dai, Z., Lin, X., Jaillet, P., and Low, B. K. H. (2025). Neural Dueling Bandits: Preference-Based Optimization with Human Feedback. International Conference on Learning Representations. §21.3 §27.3 §29.3 §29.4 §35.3
  11. Verschuere, B., Meijer, E. H., Jim, A., Hoogesteyn, K., Orthey, R., McCarthy, R. J., … Yıldız, E. (2018). Registered Replication Report on Mazar, Amir, and Ariely (2008). Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science. §38.5 §38.13
  12. Vessel, E. A., Maurer, N., Denker, A. H., and Starr, G. G. (2018). Stronger shared taste for natural aesthetic domains than for artifacts of human culture. Cognition. §41.5 §41.12 §44.2 §44.9 Ch. 44 §45.4 §46.3 §47.1
  13. Viappiani, P., and Boutilier, C. (2010). Optimal Bayesian Recommendation Sets and Myopically Optimal Choice Query Sets. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. §36.3 §40.11
  14. Viappiani, P., and Boutilier, C. (2020). On the equivalence of optimal recommendation sets and myopically optimal query sets. Artificial Intelligence. §36.3 §40.11 §40.14 Ch. 40 §45.1
  15. Vickrey, W. (1961). Counterspeculation, Auctions, and Competitive Sealed Tenders. The Journal of Finance. §40.7
  16. Villemonteix, J., Vazquez, E., and Walter, E. (2009). An Informational Approach to the Global Optimization of Expensive-to-Evaluate Functions. Journal of Global Optimization. §12.7
  17. Vinson, D. W., Dale, R., and Jones, M. N. (2019). Decision contamination in the wild: Sequential dependencies in online review ratings. Behavior Research Methods. §16.1 §37.3
  18. Vohs, K. D., Schmeichel, B. J., Lohmann, S., Gronau, Q. F., Finley, A. J., Ainsworth, S. E., … Albarracín, D. (2021). A Multisite Preregistered Paradigmatic Test of the Ego-Depletion Effect. Psychological Science. §37.2 §37.6 §45.2
  19. Voon, V., Hassan, K., Zurowski, M., de Souza, M., Thomsen, T., Fox, S., Lang, A. E., and Miyasaki, J. (2006). Prevalence of repetitive and reward-seeking behaviors in Parkinson disease. Neurology. §44.7
  20. Vyas, D., Brummet, R., Anwar, Y., Jensen, J., Jorgensen, E., Wu, Y.-H., and Chipara, O. (2022). Personalizing over-the-counter hearing aids using pairwise comparisons. Smart Health. doi:10.1016/j.smhl.2021.100231. §33.4 §34.3 §47.6

W

  1. Wadinambiarachchi, S., Kelly, R. M., Pareek, S., Zhou, Q., and Velloso, E. (2024). The Effects of Generative AI on Design Fixation and Divergent Thinking. Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. §32.9 §44.1 §44.9 §46.9
  2. Wagenmakers, E.-J., Van Der Maas, H. L. J., and Grasman, R. P. P. P. (2007). An EZ-diffusion model for response time and accuracy. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. §39.3
  3. Walasek, L., Mullett, T. L., and Stewart, N. (2024). A meta-analysis of loss aversion in risky contexts. Journal of Economic Psychology. §40.1
  4. Walter, K. V., Conroy-Beam, D., Buss, D. M., Asao, K., Sorokowska, A., Sorokowski, P., … Zupančič, M. (2020). Sex Differences in Mate Preferences Across 45 Countries: A Large-Scale Replication. Psychological Science. §38.7
  5. Wang, T., and Boutilier, C. (2003). Incremental Utility Elicitation with the Minimax Regret Decision Criterion. Proceedings of the Eighteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-03). §36.3
  6. Wang, Z., and Jegelka, S. (2017). Max-value Entropy Search for Efficient Bayesian Optimization. Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML 2017). §6.4 §11.5 §12.7 Ch. 12
  7. Wang, Y., and Pei, Y. (2024). A comprehensive survey on interactive evolutionary computation in the first two decades of the 21st century. Applied Soft Computing. doi:10.1016/j.asoc.2024.111950. §36.5
  8. Wang, Q. J., and Spence, C. (2019). Drinking through rosé-coloured glasses: Influence of wine colour on the perception of aroma and flavour in wine experts and novices. Food Research International. §44.5
  9. Wang, Z., Solloway, T., Shiffrin, R. M., and Busemeyer, J. R. (2014). Context effects produced by question orders reveal quantum nature of human judgments. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. §37.4
  10. Wang, Z., Hutter, F., Zoghi, M., Matheson, D., and de Freitas, N. (2016). Bayesian Optimization in a Billion Dimensions via Random Embeddings. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research. §14.6
  11. Wang, Y., Liu, Q., and Jin, C. (2023a). Is RLHF More Difficult than Standard RL? NeurIPS 2023. §35.4 §36.1
  12. Wang, X., Jin, Y., Schmitt, S., and Olhofer, M. (2023b). Recent Advances in Bayesian Optimization. ACM Computing Surveys. §31.8
  13. Wang, P., Li, L., Chen, L., Cai, Z., Zhu, D., Lin, B., … Sui, Z. (2024a). Large Language Models are not Fair Evaluators. ACL 2024. §35.2 §36.6
  14. Wang, Y., Sun, Z., Zhang, J., Xian, Z., Biyik, E., Held, D., and Erickson, Z. (2024b). RL-VLM-F: Reinforcement Learning from Vision Language Foundation Model Feedback. International Conference on Machine Learning. §35.6
  15. Wang, H., Branke, J., and Poloczek, M. (2025a). Bayesian Optimization with Preference Exploration using a Monotonic Neural Network Ensemble. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 38. doi:10.52202/085713-4124. §27.3 §28.7 §36.3
  16. Wang, X., Zeng, Q., Zuo, J., Liu, X., Hajiesmaili, M., Lui, J. C., and Wierman, A. (2025b). Fusing Reward and Dueling Feedback in Stochastic Bandits. International Conference on Machine Learning. §28.6
  17. Wang, W., Xu, W., and Jones, C. N. (2025c). Human-in-the-loop: Real-time Preference Optimization. arXiv. preprint §34.1
  18. Wang, W., Shi, J., and Jones, C. N. (2025d). Personalized Building Climate Control with Contextual Preferential Bayesian Optimization. arXiv. preprint §28.7 §34.1
  19. Warner, S. L. (1965). Randomized Response: A Survey Technique for Eliminating Evasive Answer Bias. Journal of the American Statistical Association. §43.8
  20. Watson, A. B., and Pelli, D. G. (1983). QUEST: A Bayesian Adaptive Psychometric Method. Perception & Psychophysics. §6.4
  21. Webb, R., Glimcher, P. W., and Louie, K. (2021). The Normalization of Consumer Valuations: Context-Dependent Preferences from Neurobiological Constraints. Management Science. §39.4
  22. Webster, J. (2021). The promise of personalisation: Exploring how music streaming platforms are shaping the performance of class identities and distinction. New Media & Society. §42.1
  23. Wedell, D. H., Hayes, W. M., and Verma, M. (2022). Context effects on choice under cognitive load. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. §37.2
  24. Weichert, D., Ernis, G., Worthmann, M., Ryzko, P., and Seifert, L. (2025). When Less is More: A Story of Failing Bayesian Optimization Due to Additional Expert Knowledge. arXiv. preprint §15.3 §32.7 §34.2
  25. Weinshall-Margel, K., and Shapard, J. (2011). Overlooked factors in the analysis of parole decisions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. §37.2
  26. Weintraub, D., Koester, J., Potenza, M. N., Siderowf, A. D., Stacy, M., Voon, V., … Lang, A. E. (2010). Impulse Control Disorders in Parkinson Disease: A Cross-Sectional Study of 3090 Patients. Archives of Neurology. §39.6 §44.7
  27. Wen, J., Zhong, R., Khan, A., Perez, E., Steinhardt, J., Huang, M., … Feng, S. (2025). Language Models Learn to Mislead Humans via RLHF. ICLR 2025. §36.2
  28. Wen, C., Phung, T., Mehrotra, P., Gulwani, S., Beaty, R. E., Nagashima, T., and Singla, A. (2026). Exploration vs. Fixation: Scaffolding Divergent and Convergent Thinking for Human-AI Co-Creation with Generative Models. arXiv. preprint §32.9
  29. Wendland, H. (2004). Scattered Data Approximation. Cambridge University Press. §10.4 §10.7 Ch. 10
  30. Whichello, C., Smith, I., Veldwijk, J., de Wit, G. A., Rutten- van Molken, M. P. M. H., and de Bekker-Grob, E. W. (2023). Discrete choice experiment versus swing-weighting: A head-to-head comparison of diabetic patient preferences for glucose-monitoring devices. PLOS ONE. §44.7
  31. Whitehouse, J., Ramdas, A., and Wu, S. (2023). On the Sublinear Regret of GP-UCB. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. §21.4 §29.4
  32. Wikipedia contributors (2026). Chanda (Buddhism). Wikipedia. non-peer-reviewed §41.9
  33. Williams, E. C., and Polito, V. (2022). Meditation in the Workplace: Does Mindfulness Reduce Bias and Increase Organisational Citizenship Behaviours? Frontiers in Psychology. §41.9
  34. Williams, C. K. I., and Rasmussen, C. E. (1996). Gaussian Processes for Regression. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 8 (NeurIPS 1995). Ch. 8
  35. Williams, M., Carroll, M., Narang, A., Weisser, C., Murphy, B., and Dragan, A. (2025). On Targeted Manipulation and Deception when Optimizing LLMs for User Feedback. ICLR 2025. §26.5 §36.2 §36.10 §41.2 §41.12 §42.2 §45.5 §46.8
  36. Williams-Ceci, S., Jakesch, M., Bhat, A., Kadoma, K., Zalmanson, L., and Naaman, M. (2026). Biased AI writing assistants shift users’ attitudes on societal issues. Science Advances. §41.8
  37. Wilson, J. T. (2024). Stopping Bayesian Optimization with Probabilistic Regret Bounds. NeurIPS 2024. §14.7 §30.7 §46.6 §47.3
  38. Wilson, T. D., and Schooler, J. W. (1991). Thinking too much: Introspection can reduce the quality of preferences and decisions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. §42.3
  39. Wilson, T. D., Lindsey, S., and Schooler, T. Y. (2000). A model of dual attitudes. Psychological Review. §38.1
  40. Wilson, J. T., Hutter, F., and Deisenroth, M. P. (2018). Maximizing Acquisition Functions for Bayesian Optimization. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 31 (NeurIPS 2018). §12.9 Ch. 12 §14.3
  41. Wilson, J. T., Borovitskiy, V., Terenin, A., Mostowski, P., and Deisenroth, M. P. (2020). Efficiently Sampling Functions from Gaussian Process Posteriors. Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML 2020). §8.5 §10.4 §12.5
  42. Winner, L. (1980). Do Artifacts Have Politics? Daedalus. §42.2
  43. Won, Y., Lee, H., Hwang, H., and Seo, M. (2025). Differential Information Distribution: A Bayesian Perspective on Direct Preference Optimization. arXiv. preprint §35.4
  44. Wood, C., Conner, M., Miles, E., Sandberg, T., Taylor, N., Godin, G., and Sheeran, P. (2016). The Impact of Asking Intention or Self-Prediction Questions on Subsequent Behavior: A Meta-Analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review. §42.2
  45. Wood, W., Mazar, A., and Neal, D. T. (2022). Habits and Goals in Human Behavior: Separate but Interacting Systems. Perspectives on Psychological Science. §38.2
  46. Wu, K., and Gardner, J. R. (2026). Knowledge Gradient for Preference Learning. arXiv. preprint §19.6 Ch. 19 §26.5 §26.8 §28.3 §28.4 §28.5 Ch. 28 §29.8 §31.8 §45.1 §47.3
  47. Wu, H., and Liu, X. (2016). Double Thompson Sampling for Dueling Bandits. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. §21.1 §21.2 Ch. 21
  48. Wu, R., and Sun, W. (2024). Making RL with Preference-based Feedback Efficient via Randomization. ICLR 2024. §35.3
  49. Wu, J., Toscano-Palmerin, S., Frazier, P. I., and Wilson, A. G. (2019). Practical Multi-fidelity Bayesian Optimization for Hyperparameter Tuning. Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI 2019). §14.7
  50. Wu, Y., Jin, T., Di, Q., Lou, H., Farnoud, F., and Gu, Q. (2024). Borda Regret Minimization for Generalized Linear Dueling Bandits. International Conference on Machine Learning. §29.1
  51. Wu, K., Sanders, C., Letham, B., and Guan, P. (2025a). Mixed Likelihood Variational Gaussian Processes. arXiv. preprint §17.4 §20.3 §20.4 §27.2
  52. Wu, Y., Thareja, R., Vepakomma, P., and Orabona, F. (2025b). Offline and Online KL-Regularized RLHF under Differential Privacy. arXiv. preprint §43.8
  53. Wu, Y., Verma, S., Lee, J., Xiong, F., Zhang, P., Awadelkarim, A., … Hill, S. (2026). LLM Prompt Duel Optimizer: Efficient Label-Free Prompt Optimization. Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2026. doi:10.18653/v1/2026.findings-acl.490. §35.3

X

  1. Xia, Y., Halim, J., Song, J., Li, D., Gao, B., Zhong, F., and O'Mahony, M. (2020). Paired preference tests and placebo placement: 2. Unraveling the effects of stimulus variance. Food Research International. §44.5 §44.9 §44.11
  2. Xia, F., Liu, H., Yue, Y., and Li, T. (2025). Beyond Numeric Rewards: In-Context Dueling Bandits with LLM Agents. Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2025. doi:10.18653/v1/2025.findings-acl.519. §35.2 §35.7
  3. Xiang, M., Kennedy, C., Xu, W., and Leffel, T. (2022). Pragmatic reasoning and semantic convention: A case study on gradable adjectives. Semantics and Pragmatics. §42.3
  4. Xiao, Q., Lam, C. S., Piara, M., and Feldman, G. (2021). Revisiting status quo bias: Replication of Samuelson and Zeckhauser (1988). Meta-Psychology. §40.12
  5. Xiao, Q., Li, L. C., Au, Y. L., Tan, S. N., Chung, W. T., and Feldman, G. (2024). Licensing via Credentials: Replication Registered Report of Monin and Miller (2001) with Extensions Investigating the Domain-Specificity of Moral Credentials and the Association Between the Credential Effect and Trait Reputational Concern. International Review of Social Psychology. §38.5
  6. Xie, S., Wu, J., and Chen, G. (2022). Discrete choice experiment with duration versus time trade-off: a comparison of test–retest reliability of health utility elicitation approaches in SF-6Dv2 valuation. Quality of Life Research. §16.1 §44.7 §44.9
  7. Xie, Q., Astudillo, R., Frazier, P. I., Scully, Z., and Terenin, A. (2024). Cost-aware Bayesian Optimization via the Pandora's Box Gittins Index. NeurIPS 2024. §14.7 §22.4 §22.5 §30.7
  8. Xie, T., Foster, D. J., Krishnamurthy, A., Rosset, C., Awadallah, A., and Rakhlin, A. (2025). Exploratory Preference Optimization: Harnessing Implicit Q*-Approximation for Sample-Efficient RLHF. ICLR 2025. §35.3
  9. Xie, Q., Cai, L., Terenin, A., Frazier, P. I., and Scully, Z. (2026). Cost-aware Stopping for Bayesian Optimization. International Conference on Machine Learning. §14.7 §22.5 §30.7 Ch. 30 §46.6 §47.3
  10. Xing, W. (2026). Attention Limited Reward Learning. arXiv preprint 2607.04590. preprint §39.3
  11. Xiong, J., Lee, S., Karava, P., and Tzempelikos, A. (2017). Personalized visual satisfaction profiles from comparative preferences using Bayesian inference. Energy Procedia. §34.1
  12. Xiong, J., Tzempelikos, A., Bilionis, I., Awalgaonkar, N. M., Lee, S., Konstantzos, I., Sadeghi, S. A., and Karava, P. (2018). Inferring personalized visual satisfaction profiles in daylit offices from comparative preferences using a Bayesian approach. Building and Environment. §34.1
  13. Xiong, J., Awalgaonkar, N. M., Tzempelikos, A., Bilionis, I., and Karava, P. (2020). Efficient learning of personalized visual preferences in daylit offices: An online elicitation framework. Building and Environment. §34.1
  14. Xiong, W., Dong, H., Ye, C., Wang, Z., Zhong, H., Ji, H., Jiang, N., and Zhang, T. (2024). Iterative Preference Learning from Human Feedback: Bridging Theory and Practice for RLHF under KL-Constraint. ICML 2024. §35.4
  15. Xu, W. (2025). Bayesian Optimization with Constraints, Structure and Human Feedback. École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL). doi:10.5075/epfl-thesis-11166. thesis §31.8
  16. Xu, Y., Wang, R., Yang, L., Singh, A., and Dubrawski, A. (2020a). Preference-based Reinforcement Learning with Finite-Time Guarantees. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. §29.1
  17. Xu, Y., Joshi, A., Singh, A., and Dubrawski, A. (2020b). Zeroth Order Non-convex optimization with Dueling-Choice Bandits. Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence. §21.3 §28.6 §29.2 §29.4
  18. Xu, W., Adachi, M., Jones, C. N., and Osborne, M. A. (2024a). Principled Bayesian Optimisation in Collaboration with Human Experts. NeurIPS 2024. §30.6
  19. Xu, W., Wang, W., Jiang, Y., Svetozarevic, B., and Jones, C. (2024b). Principled Preferential Bayesian Optimization. International Conference on Machine Learning. §13.1 §19.6 §21.3 §21.4 §26.5 §26.8 §27.1 §28.3 §28.4 §28.5 §28.8 §28.9 §28.11 Ch. 28 §29.3 §29.4 Ch. 29 §31.4 §31.8 Ch. 31 §34.1 Ch. 34 §35.5 §45.1
  20. Xu, Y., Ruis, L., Rocktäschel, T., and Kirk, R. (2025a). Investigating Non-Transitivity in LLM-as-a-Judge. International Conference on Machine Learning. §35.2
  21. Xu, Z., Wang, H., Phillips, J. M., and Zhe, S. (2025b). Standard Gaussian Process is All You Need for High-Dimensional Bayesian Optimization. ICLR 2025 (oral). §9.5 §14.1 §14.6 §26.5 Ch. 30 §30.1 §30.8 §30.9 Ch. 30
  22. Xu, P., Zheng, S., Ye, Y., Bai, C., Xu, S., Geng, H., Ho, T.-Y., and Yu, B. (2026). RankTuner: When Design Tool Parameter Tuning Meets Preference Bayesian Optimization. IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems. §34.3

Y

  1. Yamamoto, K., Koyama, Y., and Ochiai, Y. (2022). Photographic Lighting Design with Photographer-in-the-Loop Bayesian Optimization. Proceedings of the 35th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. doi:10.1145/3526113.3545690. §32.1
  2. Yang, A. X., Robeyns, M., Coste, T., Shi, Z., Wang, J., Bou-Ammar, H., and Aitchison, L. (2024). Bayesian Reward Models for LLM Alignment. ICLR 2024 SeT LLM Workshop; ICML 2024 SPIGM Workshop. workshop paper §35.6
  3. Yang, J., Hu, Z., Qiu, C., Deng, Z., Jiao, X., and Zhou, T. (2026a). Quantifying and Mitigating Self-Preference Bias of LLM Judges. arXiv. preprint §35.2
  4. Yang, D., Stante, S., Redhardt, F., Libon, L., Kassraie, P., Hakimi, I., Pásztor, B., and Krause, A. (2026b). RewardUQ: A Unified Framework for Uncertainty-Aware Reward Models. EurIPS 2025 EIML Workshop. workshop paper §35.6
  5. Yap, S. C. Y., Wortman, J., Anusic, I., Baker, S. G., Scherer, L. D., Donnellan, M. B., and Lucas, R. E. (2017). The effect of mood on judgments of subjective well-being: Nine tests of the judgment model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. §38.4 §38.13 §45.2
  6. Yechiam, E., and Zeif, D. (2025). Loss aversion is not robust: A re-meta-analysis. Journal of Economic Psychology. §40.1 §40.14 §45.2
  7. Yellott, J. J. I. (1977). The relationship between Luce's Choice Axiom, Thurstone's Theory of Comparative Judgment, and the double exponential distribution. Journal of Mathematical Psychology. §16.5 Ch. 16 §37.3 §43.2
  8. Yu, J., Goos, P., and Vandebroek, M. (2011). Individually adapted sequential Bayesian conjoint-choice designs in the presence of consumer heterogeneity. International Journal of Research in Marketing. §40.9
  9. Yu, R. T.-Y., Picard, C., and Ahmed, F. (2026). GIT-BO: High-Dimensional Bayesian Optimization with Tabular Foundation Models. International Conference on Learning Representations. §30.5
  10. Yuan, Y., Hao, J., Ma, Y., Dong, Z., Liang, H., Liu, J., … Zheng, Y. (2024). Uni-RLHF: Universal Platform and Benchmark Suite for Reinforcement Learning with Diverse Human Feedback. ICLR 2024. §36.1
  11. Yuan, L.-P., Dudley, J. J., Kristensson, P. O., and Qu, H. (2025). Personalized Dual-Level Color Grading for 360-degree Images in Virtual Reality. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics. §20.6 §32.1 §32.4
  12. Yuan, X., Chen, Z., Zhang, J., Xiong, H., Ye, N., Li, Y., and Gu, Q. (2026). Unleashing LLMs in Bayesian Optimization: Preference-Guided Framework for Scientific Discovery. ICLR 2026. §30.6 §35.2
  13. Yue, Y., and Joachims, T. (2009). Interactively optimizing information retrieval systems as a dueling bandits problem. Proceedings of the 26th Annual International Conference on Machine Learning. §21.1 §21.2 §26.1 §29.1 §42.4
  14. Yue, Y., Broder, J., Kleinberg, R., and Joachims, T. (2012). The K-armed Dueling Bandits Problem. Journal of Computer and System Sciences. §21.1 §21.2 §21.5 Ch. 21 §29.1 §29.8

Z

  1. Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. §37.2
  2. Zhang, X. (2025). PABBO code repository: evaluation config evaluate.yaml. GitHub. software §27.3 §30.5 §31.2
  3. Zhang, X. (2026). PABBO. GitHub. software §31.1
  4. Zhang, J., Fiers, P., Witte, K. A., Jackson, R. W., Poggensee, K. L., Atkeson, C. G., and Collins, S. H. (2017). Human-in-the-loop optimization of exoskeleton assistance during walking. Science. §15.8 §24.1 §24.2 Ch. 24 §33.1
  5. Zhang, Z.-Y., Han, S., Yao, H., Niu, G., and Sugiyama, M. (2024a). Generating Chain-of-Thoughts with a Pairwise-Comparison Approach to Searching for the Most Promising Intermediate Thought. International Conference on Machine Learning. §35.3
  6. Zhang, S., Yu, D., Sharma, H., Zhong, H., Liu, Z., Yang, Z., … Wang, Z. (2024b). Self-Exploring Language Models: Active Preference Elicitation for Online Alignment. TMLR. §35.3
  7. Zhang, X., Huang, D., Kaski, S., and Martinelli, J. (2025a). PABBO: Preferential Amortized Black-Box Optimization. ICLR 2025. §26.5 §27.3 §28.3 §28.5 §28.7 §28.9 §30.5 §31.2 §31.4 §31.6 §31.8 §35.6 §45.1
  8. Zhang, Y., Anh Ho, T. Q., Terris-Prestholt, F., Quaife, M., de Bekker-Grob, E., Vickerman, P., and Ong, J. J. (2025b). Prediction accuracy of discrete choice experiments in health-related research: a systematic review and meta-analysis. eClinicalMedicine. §44.7 §44.9
  9. Zhang, X., Hassan, C., Martinelli, J., Huang, D., and Kaski, S. (2026a). In-Context Multi-Objective Optimization. International Conference on Learning Representations. §30.5
  10. Zhang, R., Zhu, X., Pourebadi Khotbehsara, M., Dao, W., Bıyık, E., and Culbertson, H. (2026b). Vibrotactile Preference Learning: Uncertainty-Aware Preference Learning for Personalized Vibration Feedback. UMAP 2026 (per Semantic Scholar). §20.4 §25.2 §27.2 §32.1 §32.3 §45.1
  11. Zhao, Z., Ahmadi, A., Hoover, C., Grado, L., Peterson, N., Wang, X., … Netoff, T. I. (2021). Optimization of Spinal Cord Stimulation Using Bayesian Preference Learning and Its Validation. IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering. doi:10.1109/tnsre.2021.3113636. §33.5
  12. Zhao, H., Ye, C., Gu, Q., and Zhang, T. (2025). Sharp Analysis for KL-Regularized Contextual Bandits and RLHF. NeurIPS 2025. §35.4
  13. Zheng, L., Chiang, W.-L., Sheng, Y., Zhuang, S., Wu, Z., Zhuang, Y., … Stoica, I. (2023). Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. doi:10.52202/075280-2020. §35.2
  14. Zhi-Xuan, T., Carroll, M., Franklin, M., and Ashton, H. (2024). Beyond Preferences in AI Alignment. Philosophical Studies. §41.3
  15. Zhou, Y., Koyama, Y., Goto, M., and Igarashi, T. (2020). Generative Melody Composition with Human-in-the-Loop Bayesian Optimization. CSMC-MuMe 2020. §32.1 §32.10
  16. Zhou, Y., Koyama, Y., Goto, M., and Igarashi, T. (2021). Interactive Exploration-Exploitation Balancing for Generative Melody Composition. 26th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces. §32.1 §32.2 §32.10
  17. Zhu, M. (2024). Global and preference-based optimization using surrogate-based methods. IMT School for Advanced Studies Lucca. doi:10.13118/imtlucca/e-theses/415. thesis §31.8
  18. Zhu, M. (2025). PWAS. GitHub. software §31.1 §31.8
  19. Zhu, M., and Bemporad, A. (2025). Global and Preference-Based Optimization with Mixed Variables Using Piecewise Affine Surrogates. Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications. §28.7
  20. Zhu, M., Bemporad, A., and Piga, D. (2021). Preference-based MPC calibration. ECC 2021. §34.1
  21. Zhu, M., Piga, D., and Bemporad, A. (2022). C-GLISp: Preference-Based Global Optimization Under Unknown Constraints With Applications to Controller Calibration. IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology. §20.4 §27.2 §28.7 §28.8 §31.8 §32.10 §34.1
  22. Zhu, B., Jordan, M., and Jiao, J. (2023). Principled Reinforcement Learning with Human Feedback from Pairwise or K-wise Comparisons. International Conference on Machine Learning. §29.1 §35.4
  23. Zhu, L., Huang, X., and Sang, J. (2024). How Reliable is Your Simulator? Analysis on the Limitations of Current LLM-based User Simulators for Conversational Recommendation. Companion Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2024. doi:10.1145/3589335.3651955. workshop paper §35.2
  24. Zhuang, S., and Hadfield-Menell, D. (2020). Consequences of Misaligned AI. NeurIPS 2020. §36.2
  25. Zickfeld, J., Gonzalez, A. S. R., and Mitkidis, P. (2024). Investigating the Morning Morality Effect and its Mediating and Moderating Factors. PsyArXiv. preprint §38.9
  26. Zimmermann, J., Glimcher, P. W., and Louie, K. (2018). Multiple timescales of normalized value coding underlie adaptive choice behavior. Nature Communications. §39.4
  27. Zintgraf, L. M., Roijers, D. M., Linders, S., Jonker, C. M., and Nowé, A. (2018). Ordered Preference Elicitation Strategies for Supporting Multi-Objective Decision Making. AAMAS 2018. §36.3 Ch. 36
  28. Ziomek, J., Adachi, M., and Osborne, M. A. (2024). Bayesian Optimisation with Unknown Hyperparameters: Regret Bounds Logarithmically Closer to Optimal. NeurIPS 2024. §30.3
  29. Zoghi, M., Whiteson, S., Munos, R., and de Rijke, M. (2014). Relative Upper Confidence Bound for the K-Armed Dueling Bandit Problem. Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Machine Learning. §21.2 Ch. 21
  30. Zoghi, M., Karnin, Z. S., Whiteson, S., and de Rijke, M. (2015). Copeland Dueling Bandits. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. §21.1 §21.2 Ch. 21
  31. Zoh, Y., Paul, L. A., and Crockett, M. J. (2024). How the evaluability bias shapes transformative decisions. Synthese. §41.1
  32. Zylberberg, A., Bakkour, A., Shohamy, D., and Shadlen, M. N. (2024). Value construction through sequential sampling explains serial dependencies in decision making. eLife. doi:10.7554/eLife.96997. §16.7 §37.2 §41.1 §42.2 §44.1 §45.2 Ch. 45 §46.2 §46.6 §47.1