Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 35 references

Sequential Decision Making in Stochastic Games with Incomplete Preferences over Temporal Objectives

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper introduces non-dominated almost-sure winning, a solution concept for two-player stochastic games with adversarial, incomplete preferences over temporal goals, and proves that strategies synthesized by its rank-based algorithm…

desk verdict Important problem, but the core correctness argument collapses: Lemma 3 is false under the intended reading and the order-theoretic definitions are inconsistent. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.16291 v1 pith:QGFIQ6F6 submitted 2025-01-27 cs.GT cs.FL

Abhishek Ninad Kulkarni , Jie Fu , Ufuk Topcu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.GTcs.FL
keywords stochasticgamesincompletepreferenceslineartemporallogiconfinitetracesalmost-surewinningNashequilibriumstrategysynthesispreferenceautomatarank
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper addresses a gap in strategic decision-making: how to synthesize a strategy for an AI agent when its preferences over temporal goals are incomplete—some outcomes are incomparable—and an adversary with opposite preferences acts in a stochastic environment. It introduces non-dominated almost-sure winning (ND-ASWin), which guarantees the agent the most-preferred worst-case outcome regardless of the opponent's strategy. The authors prove that every strategy returned by their algorithm is ND-ASWin, and that a profile of ND-ASWin strategies for both players is a Nash equilibrium under a risk-averse, worst-case reading of the game. If correct, this gives a tractable way to compute stable, preference-aligned behavior in stochastic adversarial settings without forcing preferences to be complete.

What carries the argument

The central object is the product game H formed from the original stochastic game and each player's preference automaton, a deterministic finite automaton whose states carry a preorder lifted from the LTLf preference relation. The load-bearing device is the state rank: repeatedly remove the maximal elements of the preorder, and assign to each state the layer in which it is removed. A scalar rank of 0 is most preferred, and higher ranks are worse. Algorithm 1 iterates k = 0, 1, ... and checks whether the initial state lies in the almost-sure winning region for the set of states of rank at most k; the first such k yields an ND-ASWin strategy. The Nash-equilibrium result rests on Lemma 3, which shows that for adversarial preferences the ranks of the two players on any state sum to a constant, so that minimizing one's own worst-case rank is automatically a best response to the opponent doing the same.

What would settle it

Enumerate all small stochastic games with incomplete preorders on a few outcomes, run Algorithm 1, and check Definition 6 directly by enumerating all opponent strategies; the central claim is false if any returned strategy is strictly dominated. A more targeted search looks for a game where a strategy minimizes the maximum rank but an alternative strategy makes the least-preferred outcome strictly better in the preference order without increasing that maximum.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that incomplete preferences over LTLf (linear temporal logic over finite traces) objectives can be handled in two-player stochastic games by compressing each player's preference preorder into a scalar rank on the states of a product game, and then treating the best worst-case outcome as minimizing the maximum rank the player can be forced into. Theorem 2 states that every P1 strategy returned by Algorithm 1 is ND-ASWin: no alternative strategy can strictly improve the least-preferred outcome that P1 can be held to against any P2 strategy. Theorem 3 states that any strategy profile made of ND-ASWin strategies for both players is a Nash equilibrium, under the paper's worst-case interpretation of equilibrium. The rank is computed by iteratively peeling off maximal elements of the preference preorder, and the synthesis algorithm solves an almost-sure reachability game for each rank threshold, so the whole procedure runs in polynomial time.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that minimizing the maximum rank over all reachable outcomes is exactly the same as ensuring that no other strategy can produce a strictly preferred worst-case outcome; if rank order misrepresents the preference preorder for incomparable outcomes, this equivalence fails.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any pair of ND-ASWin strategies is a Nash equilibrium, so in the risk-averse sense preference-aligned play is stable against unilateral deviations.
  • The synthesis procedure is polynomial-time, quadratic in the size of the game and linear in the maximum rank, making it feasible on finite-state models.
  • Incomparability among goals need not be resolved in advance; the rank-based method synthesizes a guaranteed best worst-case outcome without a utility representation.
  • Because incomplete preferences subsume complete and lexicographic preferences, ND-ASWin generalizes earlier almost-sure winning with a single temporal goal.
  • The drone delivery experiment shows the framework can also guide game design, for instance by identifying which starting cell an agent should choose to guarantee its best possible outcome under adversarial obstruction.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because rank collapses incomparability into equal or ordered scalars, a natural extension would test how sensitive the synthesized strategies are to different tie-breaking conventions among incomparable outcomes.
  • The constant-rank-sum lemma suggests a structural duality: in adversarial incomplete-preference games there is a rank value, and ND-ASWin strategies are rank-minimax strategies; this could connect to classical min-max and multi-objective game results.
  • A testable extension would replace the scalar rank with a lexicographic sequence of layer counts, preserving more information about incomparability at the cost of solving harder multi-objective games; the paper's own complexity discussion indicates this trade-off.
  • A broader empirical sweep over random small games could check how often rank-minimization is exactly equivalent to undominance of worst-case outcomes, beyond the drone gridworld demonstration.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies two-player stochastic games on graphs in which players have adversarial and possibly incomplete preferences over LTLf temporal goals. It introduces a solution concept, non-dominated almost-sure winning (ND-ASWin), together with a scalar 'rank' metric derived from a preference automaton, and an algorithm that computes an ND-ASWin strategy by successively solving almost-sure reachability games. The main theoretical claims are that the algorithm's output is ND-ASWin (Theorem 2) and that any profile of ND-ASWin strategies is a Nash equilibrium under a risk-averse qualitative interpretation (Theorem 3). The paper also includes a drone-delivery experiment illustrating the rank computation. The central proofs rely on Lemma 2, connecting rank minimization to undominance, and Lemma 3, asserting that the ranks of the two adversarial players sum to a constant.

Significance. If the results were correct, the paper would provide a practically appealing synthesis method: polynomial-time computation of preference-aligned, robust strategies in stochastic games with incomplete preferences, plus a Nash-equilibrium guarantee. The problem formulation is meaningful, the automata-theoretic reduction is natural, and the drone example is a useful concrete illustration. The paper is also commendable for not fitting parameters and for defining the rank from the preference automaton rather than reverse-engineering it. However, the central correctness arguments contain load-bearing errors. Lemma 3 is false, and the proof of Lemma 2 reverses the direction of strict dominance given by Definition 6. Because these lemmas underpin Theorems 1–3, the paper's main claims are not established.

major comments (3)
  1. [Qualitative Nash Equilibrium, Lemma 3] Lemma 3 is false. Consider V={v1,v2,v3,v4} with E1 defined by v1≻v2≻v4, v3≻v4, v1∥v3, and v2∥v3. Under Definition 9 with the standard meaning of maximal elements, rank1(v1)=rank1(v3)=0, rank1(v2)=1, and rank1(v4)=2. The adversarial inverse E2 satisfies v4≻v2≻v1 and v4≻v3, with v1∥v3 and v2∥v3, giving rank2(v4)=0, rank2(v2)=rank2(v3)=1, and rank2(v1)=2. Then rank1(v1)+rank2(v1)=2 while rank1(v3)+rank2(v3)=1, contradicting the asserted constancy. This is not a corner case: v3 is an incomparable branch of exactly the kind the paper's incomplete-preference model is meant to accommodate. Since Lemma 4 and Theorem 3 rely on the constancy of rank1+rank2, the Nash-equilibrium theorem is unsupported.
  2. [Synthesis of Non-dominated Almost-sure Winning Strategy, Lemma 2] The proof of Lemma 2 reverses the preference direction given by Definition 6. If (π1′,π2) strictly dominates (π1,π2), condition 2 of Definition 6 yields ρ∈Min(Ω(π1′,π2)) and ρ′∈Min(Ω(π1,π2)) such that L(ρ)≻1L(ρ′). The proof instead asserts the existence of v′∈Min(Ω(π1′,π2)) with v′≻1v for some v∈Min(Ω(π1,π2)), which is the opposite orientation. With the direction corrected, the purported contradiction does not follow: a strict improvement among some minimal outcomes does not imply a decrease in the maximum rank over the whole outcome set, because minimal outcomes need not realize the maximum rank. Consequently, Theorem 1 and the correctness of Algorithm 1 are not established.
  3. [Ranks: A Measure of Quality of Outcome, Definition 9 and Proposition 2] The rank metric is not shown to be a faithful proxy for the dominance order used in Definition 6. Proposition 2 gives only one-way implications, and the authors explicitly acknowledge in Example 1 that the converses fail; in particular, a lower rank does not imply weak preference. Lemma 1 only asserts that maximum-rank states are minimal, which is one direction. The central claim that minimizing MaxRank is equivalent to being non-dominated is not proven by any valid argument, since Lemma 2 is the only bridge and its proof is invalid. Thus the assertion in the Ranks subsection that rank is 'sufficient to synthesize ND-ASWin strategies' is unsupported.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Preliminaries, maximal and minimal elements] The definitions of maximal and minimal elements appear reversed relative to standard usage: 'u is maximal if there is no v∈U such that u⪰v' describes a least-preferred element, not a maximal one. This ambiguity propagates into Definition 9 and Lemma 1 and should be corrected.
  2. [Proof of Lemma 3] In the proof of Lemma 3, the sentence 'Since v was a minimal element in V under E2' is not consistent with the construction: v is chosen from the last rank class under E1, so it is maximal under E1 and minimal under E2 only under the intended standard reading. The phrasing needs to be made precise.
  3. [Definition 2 (Proper Strategy)] Strategies were defined as functions π:S+→D(A), but Definition 2 writes π:S+→A, which is the signature of a deterministic strategy. The definition should clarify whether properness applies to randomized strategies and, if so, how 'undefined' interacts with probability distributions.
  4. [Theorem 2 proof] In the proof of Theorem 2, the expression 'v′∈max{rank1(v) | v∈Ω(...)}' uses 'max' ambiguously to denote both a numerical maximum and a set of states attaining it; this should be rewritten for clarity.
  5. [Example 1] Example 1 contains a typo: 'the rank of v3 is smaller than that of v3' should presumably compare the rank of v3 with the rank of v2.
  6. [Proposition 1 dependency] The paper relies on the preference-automaton theorem of Rahmani, Kulkarni, and Fu (2024) for Proposition 1. Since this is a nonstandard imported result, the dependency should be stated more prominently, and ideally a proof sketch or self-contained statement should be included.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circular derivation: rank-based synthesis is self-contained; only an external co-authored preference-automaton construction is a dependency.

full rationale

The derivation chain does not reduce to its inputs. Rank (Definition 9) is defined by iterated removal of maximal elements of the preference preorder, not by fitting to the strategies or outcomes it is later used to certify. Algorithm 1 minimizes the rank threshold for which an almost-sure winning region is reachable, so the ND-ASWin guarantee in Theorem 2 is a consequence of the rank definition plus the external almost-sure-winning algorithm of De Alfaro et al., not a restatement of the definition. The preference-automaton encoding (Definition 5 and Proposition 1) is imported from co-authored prior work (Rahmani, Kulkarni, and Fu 2024, Theorem 1). That is a load-bearing dependency, but it is parameter-free and states an independent construction from LTLf to automata; the present paper does not define the preference order in terms of its own theorem, so no reduction-by-definition occurs. There are no fitted parameters and no quantity called a prediction is reused as an input. A separate mathematical concern, not a circularity, is that Lemma 3's claim that rank1(v)+rank2(v) is constant for all states fails for incomparable elements; for example, a four-state preorder with an incomparable branch yields rank sums 2, 2, 1, 2. This is an internal correctness issue that may undermine Theorem 3, but it is not a self-referential derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No fitted numerical parameters appear; the rank's levels are derived from the preference preorder. Two domain assumptions (exact opposition and the imported preference-automaton theorem) carry the main burden, plus an ambiguous definition of Min that may invert the worst-case semantics.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The preference automaton theorem of (Rahmani, Kulkarni, and Fu 2024, Theorem 1) correctly maps any LTLf preference relation to a preorder on automaton states.
    Proposition 1 and the product-game construction rely on this imported theorem; it is self-cited and not machine-checked in this paper.
  • domain assumption Players' preferences are exactly opposite: u ⪰E2 v iff v ⪰E1 u.
    Assumed after Definition 10 and used in Lemma 3; restricts the framework to fully adversarial zero-sum-like preferences, not a general incomplete-preference setting.
  • ad hoc to paper The set of 'least preferred outcomes' of a strategy profile is given by the minimal elements of the induced preorder as defined in the paper.
    The definitions of maximal and minimal elements appear inconsistent with the intended worst-case reading, so the semantics of Min in Definition 6 is ambiguous; the proofs depend on one particular reading.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Sequential Decision Making in Stochastic Games with Incomplete Preferences over Temporal Objectives." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QGFIQ6F6

@misc{pith2026250116291,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Sequential Decision Making in Stochastic Games with Incomplete Preferences over Temporal Objectives},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QGFIQ6F6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.16291}
}
read the original abstract

Ensuring that AI systems make strategic decisions aligned with the specified preferences in adversarial sequential interactions is a critical challenge for developing trustworthy AI systems, especially when the environment is stochastic and players' incomplete preferences leave some outcomes unranked. We study the problem of synthesizing preference-satisfying strategies in two-player stochastic games on graphs where players have opposite (possibly incomplete) preferences over a set of temporal goals. We represent these goals using linear temporal logic over finite traces (LTLf), which enables modeling the nuances of human preferences where temporal goals need not be mutually exclusive and comparison between some goals may be unspecified. We introduce a solution concept of non-dominated almost-sure winning, which guarantees to achieve a most preferred outcome aligned with specified preferences while maintaining robustness against the adversarial behaviors of the opponent. Our results show that strategy profiles based on this concept are Nash equilibria in the game where players are risk-averse, thus providing a practical framework for evaluating and ensuring stable, preference-aligned outcomes in the game. Using a drone delivery example, we demonstrate that our contributions offer valuable insights not only for synthesizing rational behavior under incomplete preferences but also for designing games that motivate the desired behavior from the players in adversarial conditions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.16291 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Drone delivery in hostile environment. u ⪰E2 v. In other words, v is a maximal element in V under E2. By definition, rank2(v) = 0. It follows that every v such that rank1(v) = k max 1 has a rank 0 under E2. For j = 0, 1, . . ., let Yj , , denote the set of states with rank j under E2. Using a similar argument, the minimal elements of S k j=0 Zj are the maximal elements of the set V \ S k j=0 Yj . Therefore, every st… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Preference automaton for the relation defined by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.a...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

  3. [3]

    11em plus .33em minus .07em @technote 4000 4000 100 4000 4000 500 `\.=1000 = #1 #1 #1 0pt [0pt][0pt] #1 * \| ** #1 \@IEEEauthorblockNstyle \@IEEEauthorblockAstyle \@IEEEauthordefaulttextstyle \@IEEEauthorblockconfadjspace -0.25em \@IEEEauthorblockNtopspace 0.0ex \@IEEEauthorblockAtopspace 0.0ex \@IEEEauthorblockNinterlinespace 2.6ex \@IEEEauthorblockAinte...

    work page arXiv

  4. [4]

    Bade, S. 2005. Nash equilibrium in games with incomplete preferences. Economic Theory, 26: 309--332

    work page 2005

  5. [5]

    Baier, C.; and Katoen, J.-P. 2008. Principles of model checking. MIT press

    2008

  6. [6]

    Barbera, S.; and Pattanaik, P. K. 1984. Extending an order on a set to the power set: some remarks on Kannai and Peleg's approach. Journal of Economic Theory, 32(1): 185--191

    work page 1984

  7. [7]

    Blass, A.; Gurevich, Y.; Nachmanson, L.; and Veanes, M. 2006. Play to test. In Formal Approaches to Software Testing: 5th International Workshop, FATES 2005, Edinburgh, UK, July 11, 2005, Revised Selected Papers 5, 32--46. Springer

    work page 2006

  8. [8]

    Bosi, G.; and Herden, G. 2012. Continuous multi-utility representations of preorders. Journal of Mathematical Economics, 48: 212--218

    work page 2012

Show all 35 references
  1. [9]

    Brunello, A.; Montanari, A.; and Reynolds, M. 2019. Synthesis of LTL formulas from natural language texts: State of the art and research directions. In 26th International symposium on temporal representation and reasoning (TIME 2019). Schloss Dagstuhl-Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik

    2019

  2. [10]

    Chatterjee, K.; and Henzinger, T. A. 2012. A survey of stochastic -regular games. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 78(2): 394--413

    2012

  3. [11]

    P.; Mohr, S.; Weininger, M.; and Winkler, T

    Chatterjee, K.; Katoen, J. P.; Mohr, S.; Weininger, M.; and Winkler, T. 2023. Stochastic games with lexicographic objectives. Formal Methods in System Design, 1--41

    2023

  4. [12]

    Chen, T.; Forejt, V.; Kwiatkowska, M.; Simaitis, A.; and Wiltsche, C. 2013 a . On stochastic games with multiple objectives. In Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science 2013: 38th International Symposium, MFCS 2013, Klosterneuburg, Austria, August 26-30, 2013. Proceedings ...

    2013

  5. [13]

    Chen, T.; Kwiatkowska, M.; Simaitis, A.; and Wiltsche, C. 2013 b . Synthesis for multi-objective stochastic games: An application to autonomous urban driving. In Quantitative Evaluation of Systems: 10th International Conference, QEST 2013, Buenos Aires, Argentina, August 27-30...

    2013

  6. [14]

    Dalrymple, D.; Skalse, J.; Bengio, Y.; Russell, S.; Tegmark, M.; Seshia, S.; Omohundro, S.; Szegedy, C.; Goldhaber, B.; Ammann, N.; et al. 2024. Towards Guaranteed Safe AI: A Framework for Ensuring Robust and Reliable AI Systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.06624

    2024 arXiv

  7. [15]

    A.; and Kupferman, O

    De Alfaro, L.; Henzinger, T. A.; and Kupferman, O. 2007. Concurrent reachability games. Theoretical computer science, 386(3): 188--217

    2007

  8. [16]

    De Giacomo, G.; and Vardi, M. Y. 2013. Linear temporal logic and linear dynamic logic on finite traces. In IJCAI'13 Proceedings of the Twenty-Third international joint conference on Artificial Intelligence, 854--860. Association for Computing Machinery

    2013

  9. [17]

    Finucane, C.; Jing, G.; and Kress-Gazit, H. 2010. LTLMoP: Experimenting with language, temporal logic and robot control. In 2010 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, 1988--1993. IEEE

    2010

  10. [18]

    Gr \"a del, E.; Thomas, W.; and Wilke, T. 2003. Automata, logics, and infinite games: a guide to current research, volume 2500. Springer

    2003

  11. [19]

    O.; and Grüne-Yanoff, T

    Hansson, S. O.; and Grüne-Yanoff, T. 2022. Preferences . In Zalta, E. N., ed., The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy . Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, S pring 2022 edition

    2022

  12. [20]

    Kokkala, J.; Berg, K.; Virtanen, K.; and Poropudas, J. 2019. Rationalizable strategies in games with incomplete preferences. Theory and Decision, 86: 185--204

    2019

  13. [21]

    N.; and Fu, J

    Kulkarni, A. N.; and Fu, J. 2022. Opportunistic Qualitative Planning in Stochastic Systems with Preferences over Temporal Logic Objectives. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.13803

    2022 arXiv

  14. [22]

    M.; She, Z.; and Zhang, L

    Li, M.; Turrini, A.; Hahn, E. M.; She, Z.; and Zhang, L. 2020. Probabilistic preference planning problem for markov decision processes. IEEE transactions on software engineering, 48(5): 1545--1559

    2020

  15. [23]

    X.; Yang, Z.; Schornstein, B.; Liang, S.; Idrees, I.; Tellex, S.; and Shah, A

    Liu, J. X.; Yang, Z.; Schornstein, B.; Liang, S.; Idrees, I.; Tellex, S.; and Shah, A. 2022. Lang2ltl: Translating natural language commands to temporal specification with large language models. In Workshop on Language and Robotics at CoRL 2022

    2022

  16. [24]

    Maly, J. 2020. Lifting preferences over alternatives to preferences over sets of alternatives: The complexity of recognizing desirable families of sets. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 34, 2152--2159

    2020

  17. [25]

    Ok, E. A. 2002. Utility Representation of an Incomplete Preference Relation. Journal of Economic Theory, 104: 429--449

    2002

  18. [26]

    Pnueli, A.; and Zuck, L. D. 1993. Probabilistic verification. Information and computation, 103(1): 1--29

    1993

  19. [27]

    N.; and Fu, J

    Rahmani, H.; Kulkarni, A. N.; and Fu, J. 2023. Probabilistic planning with partially ordered preferences over temporal goals. In 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 5702--5708. IEEE

    2023

  20. [28]

    N.; and Fu, J

    Rahmani, H.; Kulkarni, A. N.; and Fu, J. 2024. Preference-Based Planning in Stochastic Environments: From Partially-Ordered Temporal Goals to Most Preferred Policies. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.18212

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Sasaki, Y. 2019. Rationalizability in multicriteria games. International Journal of Game Theory, 48(2): 673--685

    2019

  22. [30]

    Sen, A. 1997. Maximization and the Act of Choice. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 745--779

    1997

  23. [31]

    A.; Sadigh, D.; and Sastry, S

    Seshia, S. A.; Sadigh, D.; and Sastry, S. S. 2022. Toward verified artificial intelligence. Communications of the ACM, 65(7): 46--55

    2022

  24. [32]

    Tegmark, M.; and Omohundro, S. 2023. Provably safe systems: the only path to controllable AGI. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.01933

    2023 arXiv

  25. [33]

    van Benthem, J.; van Otterloo, S.; and johan, O. R. 2005. Preference logic, conditionals and solution concepts in games. Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics

    2005

  26. [34]

    Wing, J. M. 2021. Trustworthy AI. Commun. ACM, 64(10): 64–71

    2021

  27. [35]

    Özgür Evren; and Ok, E. A. 2011. On the multi-utility representation of preference relations. Journal of Mathematical Economics, 47: 554--563

    2011

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.