Original: Learning from Stochastically Revealed Preference
Revised: Learning from Stochastically Revealed Preference

Original: Anonymous Author(s)

Original: AffiliationAddress email

Original: Abstract
Revised: Abstract

Original: We study the learning problem of revealed preference in a stochastic setting: alearner observes the utility-maximizing actions of a set of agents whose utilityfollows some unknown distribution, and the learner aims to infer the distributionthrough the observations of actions.
Revised: We study the learning problem of revealed preference in a stochastic setting: a learner observes the utility-maximizing actions of a set of agents whose utility follows some unknown distribution, and the learner aims to infer the distribution through the observations of actions.

Original: The problem can be viewed as a singleconstraint special case of the inverse linear optimization problem.
Revised: The problem can be viewed as a singleconstraint special case of the inverse linear optimization problem.

Original: Existing worksall assume that all the agents share one common utility which can easily be violatedunder practical contexts.
Revised: Existing works all assume that all the agents share one common utility which can easily be violated under practical contexts.

Original: In this paper, we consider two settings for the underlyingutility distribution: a Gaussian setting where the customer utility follows the von
Revised: In this paper, we consider two settings for the underlying utility distribution: a Gaussian setting where the customer utility follows the von

Original: Mises-Fisher distribution, and a δ -corruption setting where the customer utilitydistribution concentrates on one fixed vector with high probability and is arbitrarilycorrupted otherwise.
Revised: Mises-Fisher distribution, and a δ -corruption setting where the customer utility distribution concentrates on one fixed vector with high probability and is arbitrarily corrupted otherwise.

Original: We devise Bayesian approaches for parameter estimation anddevelop theoretical guarantees for the recovery of the true parameter.
Revised: We devise Bayesian approaches for parameter estimation and develop theoretical guarantees for the recovery of the true parameter.

Original: We illustratethe algorithm performance through numerical experiments.
Revised: We illustrate the algorithm performance through numerical experiments.

Original:  Introduction
Revised:  Introduction

Original: The problem of learning from revealed preference refers to the learning of a common utility functionfor a set of agents based on the observations of the utility-maximizing actions from the agents.
Revised: The problem of learning from revealed preference refers to the learning of a common utility function for a set of agents based on the observations of the utility-maximizing actions from the agents.

Original: Therevealed preference problem has a long history in economics [Sam48, Afr67]
Revised: The revealed preference problem has a long history in economics [Sam48, Afr67]

Original: (See [Var06] for areview).
Revised: (See [Var06] for a review).

Original: A line of works [BV06, ZR12, BDM + 14, ACD + 15] formulate the problem as a learningproblem with two objectives: (i) rationalizing a set of observations, i e., to find a utility function whichexplains a set of past observations; (ii) predicting the future behavior of a utility-maximization agent.
Revised: A line of works [BV06, ZR12, BDM + 14, ACD + 15] formulate the problem as a learning problem with two objectives: (i) rationalizing a set of observations, i e., to find a utility function which explains a set of past observations; (ii) predicting the future behavior of a utility-maximization agent.

Original: Mathematically, the action of the agents is modeled by an optimization problem that maximizes alinear (or concave) utility function subject to one linear budget constraint.
Revised: Mathematically, the action of the agents is modeled by an optimization problem that maximizes a linear (or concave) utility function subject to one linear budget constraint.

Original: The learner (decisionmaker) aims to learn the unknown utility function through a set of observations of the constraintsand the optimal solutions.
Revised: The learner (decision maker) aims to learn the unknown utility function through a set of observations of the constraints and the optimal solutions.

Original: The problem can be viewed as a single-constraint special case of theinverse optimization problem [AO01] which covers a wider range of applications: geoscience [BT92],finance [BGP12], market analysis [BHP17], energy [ASS18], etc.
Revised: The problem can be viewed as a single-constraint special case of the inverse optimization problem [AO01] which covers a wider range of applications: geoscience [BT92], finance [BGP12], market analysis [BHP17], energy [ASS18], etc.

Original: In this paper, we study the problem under a stochastic setting where the agents have a linear utilityfunction randomly distributed according to some unknown distribution.
Revised: In this paper, we study the problem under a stochastic setting where the agents have a linear utility function randomly distributed according to some unknown distribution.

Original: Such a stochastic settingis well-motivated by some application context where the agents are customers and the constraintmodels the prices and the customer’s budget.
Revised: Such a stochastic setting is well-motivated by some application context where the agents are customers and the constraint models the prices and the customer’s budget.

Original: The optimal solution encodes the customer’s purchasebehavior and the stochastic utility (objective function) captures the heterogeneity of the customerpreference for the products.
Revised: The optimal solution encodes the customer’s purchase behavior and the stochastic utility (objective function) captures the heterogeneity of the customer preference for the products.

Original: The goal of learning in this stochastic setting thus becomes to learn theutility distribution through observations of the actions.
Revised: The goal of learning in this stochastic setting thus becomes to learn the utility distribution through observations of the actions.

Original: To the best of our knowledge, we provide thefirst result of learning a stochastic utility for the revealed preference problem and even in the moregeneral literature of the inverse optimization problem.
Revised: To the best of our knowledge, we provide the first result of learning a stochastic utility for the revealed preference problem and even in the more general literature of the inverse optimization problem.

Original: Related Literature: The existing approaches to the problem can be roughly divided into twocategories.
Revised: Related Literature: The existing approaches to the problem can be roughly divided into two categories.

Original: Query-based:
Revised: Query-based:

Original: In a query-based model, the learner aims to learn the utility function by querying anoracle for the agent’s optimal actions, and the goal is to derive the sample complexity guarantee fora sufficiently accurate estimation of the utility function.
Revised: In a query-based model, the learner aims to learn the utility function by querying an oracle for the agent’s optimal actions, and the goal is to derive the sample complexity guarantee for a sufficiently accurate estimation of the utility function.

Original: [BV06] initiates this line of research andstudies a statistical setup where the input data is a set of observations and the learner’s performanceis evaluated by sample complexity bounds.
Revised: [BV06] initiates this line of research and studies a statistical setup where the input data is a set of observations and the learner’s performance is evaluated by sample complexity bounds.

Original: [ZR12] studies the case of a linear or linearly separableconcave utility function, and [BDM + 14] generalizes the setting and devises learning algorithms forseveral classes of utility functions.
Revised: [ZR12] studies the case of a linear or linearly separable concave utility function, and [BDM + 14] generalizes the setting and devises learning algorithms for several classes of utility functions.

Original: Other than a statistical setup where the observations are sampledfrom some distribution, both of these two works study an “active” learning setting where the learnerhas the power to choose the linear constraint (set the prices of the products).
Revised: Other than a statistical setup where the observations are sampled from some distribution, both of these two works study an “active” learning setting where the learner has the power to choose the linear constraint (set the prices of the products).

Original: Some subsequent worksalong this line study the associated revenue management problem [ACD + 15] and a game-theoreticsetting [DRS + 18] where the agents act strategically to hide the true actions.
Revised: Some subsequent works along this line study the associated revenue management problem [ACD + 15] and a game-theoretic setting [DRS + 18] where the agents act strategically to hide the true actions.

Original: Optimization-based:
Revised: Optimization-based:

Original: The optimization-based approach is usually adopted in the literature of inverseoptimization, and some algorithms developed therein can be applied to the special case of the revealedpreference problem.
Revised: The optimization-based approach is usually adopted in the literature of inverse optimization, and some algorithms developed therein can be applied to the special case of the revealed preference problem.

Original: [ZL96] and [AO01] study the inverse optimization with one single observationand develop linear programming formulations to solve the problem.
Revised: [ZL96] and [AO01] study the inverse optimization with one single observation and develop linear programming formulations to solve the problem.

Original: Later, [KWB11] and [ASS18]study the statistical (or data-driven) setting where the observations are sampled from some distribution.
Revised: Later, [KWB11] and [ASS18] study the statistical (or data-driven) setting where the observations are sampled from some distribution.

Original: Specifically, [ASS18] considers a setting where the optimal actions of the agents are contaminatedwith some independent noises, but all the agents still follow a common utility parameter vector.[MESAHK18] studies the distributional robust version of the problem and [BFL21] considers acontextual formulation.
Revised: Specifically, [ASS18] considers a setting where the optimal actions of the agents are contaminated with some independent noises, but all the agents still follow a common utility parameter vector. [MESAHK18] studies the distributional robust version of the problem and [BFL21] considers a contextual formulation.

Original: A recent line of works [BMPS18, DCZ18, DZ20, CKK20] cast the inverseoptimization problem in an online context and develop (online) gradient-based algorithms.
Revised: A recent line of works [BMPS18, DCZ18, DZ20, CKK20] cast the inverse optimization problem in an online context and develop (online) gradient-based algorithms.

Original: As we understand, all the existing algorithms and analyses under this topic rely on the assumptionthat all the agents share one common utility function (or a common utility parameter vector), and thuscan fail in the stochastic setting.
Revised: As we understand, all the existing algorithms and analyses under this topic rely on the assumption that all the agents share one common utility function (or a common utility parameter vector), and thus can fail in the stochastic setting.

Original: In this paper, we formulate the problem in Section 2 and focus onthe statistical data input where the budget constraint is sampled from some unknown distribution.
Revised: In this paper, we formulate the problem in Section 2 and focus on the statistical data input where the budget constraint is sampled from some unknown distribution.

Original: Weconsider two stochastic settings: a Gaussian setting in Section 3 and a δ -corruption setting in Section4.
Revised: We consider two stochastic settings: a Gaussian setting in Section 3 and a δ -corruption setting in Section 4.

Original: We conclude with numerical experiments and discuss (i) how the results can be generalized to theinverse optimization problem and (ii) the implications for the query-based model where the learnerhas the power to choose the budget constraints.
Revised: We conclude with numerical experiments and discuss (i) how the results can be generalized to the inverse optimization problem and (ii) the implications for the query-based model where the learner has the power to choose the budget constraints.

Original:  Model Setup
Revised:  Model Setup

Original: Consider a customer who purchases a bundle of products subject to some budget constraint.
Revised: Consider a customer who purchases a bundle of products subject to some budget constraint.

Original: Thecustomer’s utility-maximizing action can be modeled by the following linear program:
Revised: The customer’s utility-maximizing action can be modeled by the following linear program:

Original: [Equation]
Revised: [Equation]

Original: where u = ( u 1 , ..., u n ) ∈ R n , a = ( a 1 , ..., a n ) ∈ R n + , and b ∈ R + are the inputs of the LP.
Revised: where u = ( u 1 , ..., u n ) ∈ R n , a = ( a 1 , ..., a n ) ∈ R n + , and b ∈ R + are the inputs of the LP.

Original: Here thedecision variables x encode the purchase decisions where a partial purchase is allowed, u i denotesthe customer’s utility for the i -th product, and a i denotes the price or cost of purchasing the i -thproduct.
Revised: Here the decision variables x encode the purchase decisions where a partial purchase is allowed, u i denotes the customer’s utility for the i -th product, and a i denotes the price or cost of purchasing the i -th product.

Original: The right-hand-side b denotes the budget of the customer.
Revised: The right-hand-side b denotes the budget of the customer.

Original: Throughout this paper, we make the following assumption.
Revised: Throughout this paper, we make the following assumption.

Original: Assumption 1.
Revised: Assumption 1.

Original: We assume:
Revised: We assume:

Original: • The utility vector u follows some unknown distribution P u .•
Revised: • The utility vector u follows some unknown distribution P u .

Original:  The LP’s input ( a , b ) follows some unknown distribution P a ,b independent of P u .•
Revised: • The LP ’s input ( a , b ) follows some unknown distribution P a ,b independent of P u .

Original:  There exists a > 0 such that a i ∈
Revised: • There exists a > 0 such that a i ∈

Original: [ a, 1] almost surely for i = 1 , ..., n .
Revised: [ a, 1] almost surely for i = 1 , ..., n .

Original: Our goal is to infer the distribution through observations of customers’ optimal actions.
Revised: Our goal is to infer the distribution through observations of customers’ optimal actions.

Original: Mathematically, we aim to estimate the distribution of P u through the dataset
Revised: Mathematically, we aim to estimate the distribution of P u through the dataset

Original: [Equation]
Revised: [Equation]

Original: Here the t -th sample corresponds to an unobservable u t generated from P u and x ∗ t is one optimalsolution of LP ( u t , a t , b t ) .
Revised: Here the t -th sample corresponds to an unobservable u t generated from P u and x ∗ t is one optimal solution of LP ( u t , a t , b t ) .

Original: Due to the scale invariance of the utility vector, we restrict the distribution
Revised: Due to the scale invariance of the utility vector, we restrict the distribution

Original: P u to the unit sphere S n − 1 = { u : ∥ u ∥ 2 = 1 } .
Revised: P u to the unit sphere S n − 1 = { u : ∥ u ∥ 2 = 1 } .

Original: In the following two sections, we considertwo settings: (i) Gaussian: P u follows the von Mises–Fisher distribution, i.e., the restriction of amultivariate Gaussian distribution to the unit sphere; (ii) δ -corruption: P u concentrates on one pointu ∗ with probability 1 − δ and follows an arbitrarily corrupted distribution with probability δ .
Revised: In the following two sections, we consider two settings: (i) Gaussian: P u follows the von Mises–Fisher distribution, i.e., the restriction of a multivariate Gaussian distribution to the unit sphere; (ii) δ -corruption: P u concentrates on one point u ∗ with probability 1 − δ and follows an arbitrarily corrupted distribution with probability δ .

Original: The challenge of the problem.
Revised: The challenge of the problem.

Original: Each observation ( x ∗ t , a t , b t ) prescribes a region U t ⊂ S n − 1 ,U t := (cid:8) u
Revised: Each observation ( x ∗ t , a t , b t ) prescribes a region U t ⊂ S n − 1 ,

Original: [Equation] S n [Equation] 1 : x ∗ t is an optimal solution of LP ( u , a t , b t ) (cid:9) .
Revised: U t := (cid:8) u ∈ S n − 1 : x ∗ t is an optimal solution of LP ( u , a t , b t ) (cid:9) .

Original: The set U t captures all the possible values of u t that is consistent with the t -th observation.
Revised: The set U t captures all the possible values of u t that is consistent with the t -th observation.

Original: Thefollowing lemma states that the set U t can be expressed by a group of linear constraints.
Revised: The following lemma states that the set U t can be expressed by a group of linear constraints.

Original: Lemma 1.
Revised: Lemma 1.

Original: For each U t , there exists a matrix V t and a vector w t such that
Revised: For each U t , there exists a matrix V t and a vector w t such that

Original: [Equation]
Revised: [Equation]

Original: In the deterministic setting of the revealed preference problem, all the u t ’s are identical and thelearning problem is thus reduced to finding one feasible u in the set of ∩ Tt =1 U t .
Revised: In the deterministic setting of the revealed preference problem, all the u t ’s are identical and the learning problem is thus reduced to finding one feasible u in the set of ∩ Tt =1 U t .

Original: But in a stochasticsetting, it may happen that the set of ∩ Tt =1 U t is empty.
Revised: But in a stochastic setting, it may happen that the set of ∩ Tt =1 U t is empty.

Original: Figure 1 provides a conceptual visualizationof this challenge of “empty intersection”.
Revised: Figure 1 provides a conceptual visualization of this challenge of “empty intersection”.

Original: Each blue solid segment denotes one such U t and the bluedashed line represents a value of u that appears most frequently in these U t ’s. We remark that thefigure is just for illustrative purpose as the problem may not be well-defined in the 1-dimensionalcase.
Revised: Each blue solid segment denotes one such U t and the blue dashed line represents a value of u that appears most frequently in these U t ’s. We remark that the figure is just for illustrative purpose as the problem may not be well-defined in the 1-dimensional case.

Original: From an estimation viewpoint, the goal is to estimate the distribution of P u without the knowledgeof the realized samples u t ’s, but merely with the knowledge of U t to which u t belongs.
Revised: From an estimation viewpoint, the goal is to estimate the distribution of P u without the knowledge of the realized samples u t ’s, but merely with the knowledge of U t to which u t belongs.

Original: Thesample efficiency of the estimation procedure is naturally contingent on the dispersion of U t which isessentially determined by the generation of ( a t , b t ) .
Revised: The sample efficiency of the estimation procedure is naturally contingent on the dispersion of U t which is essentially determined by the generation of ( a t , b t ) .

Original: For example, if all the U t ’s coincide with eachother, then one can hardly learn much about the underlying P u .
Revised: For example, if all the U t ’s coincide with each other, then one can hardly learn much about the underlying P u .

Original: In this paper, we aim to pinpointconditions for P a ,b such that the learning of P u is possible.
Revised: In this paper, we aim to pinpoint conditions for P a ,b such that the learning of P u is possible.

Original: Also, an alternative way to measurethe estimation accuracy is to evaluate the predictive performance of the estimated model on newobservations generated from P a ,b , and such performance bounds generally bear less dependency onthe distribution of P a ,b .
Revised: Also, an alternative way to measure the estimation accuracy is to evaluate the predictive performance of the estimated model on new observations generated from P a ,b , and such performance bounds generally bear less dependency on the distribution of P a ,b .

Original: We also provide theoretical guarantees in this sense.
Revised: We also provide theoretical guarantees in this sense.

Original:  Gaussian Setting
Revised:  Gaussian Setting

Original: In this section, we consider a setting where the distribution P u follows the von Mises-Fisher distribution parameterized by θ =
Revised: In this section, we consider a setting where the distribution P u follows the von Mises-Fisher distribution parameterized by θ =

Original: ( µ , κ ) with the density function
Revised: ( µ , κ ) with the density function

Original: [Equation]
Revised: [Equation]

Original: Here the vector µ ∈ R n represents the mean direction and the parameter κ > 0 controls the concentration of the distribution.
Revised: Here the vector µ ∈ R n represents the mean direction and the parameter κ > 0 controls the concentration of the distribution.

Original: The deterministic setting of the revealed preference problem can be viewed as the case when κ = ∞ and then the distribution degenerates to a point-mass distribution on the unit sphere.
Revised: The deterministic setting of the revealed preference problem can be viewed as the case when κ = ∞ and then the distribution degenerates to a point-mass distribution on the unit sphere.

Original: Denote the true parameters of the distribution P u by θ ∗ = ( µ ∗ , κ ∗ ) .
Revised: Denote the true parameters of the distribution P u by θ ∗ = ( µ ∗ , κ ∗ ) .

Original: Then the likelihood of the dataset D t under a parameter θ is
Revised: Then the likelihood of the dataset D T under a parameter θ is

Original: [Equation]
Revised: [Equation]

Original: We remark that the maximum likelihood approach cannot be applied here for two reasons.
Revised: We remark that the maximum likelihood approach cannot be applied here for two reasons.

Original: First, theintegration of f ( u ; θ ) over the region U t is not closed-form.
Revised: First, the integration of f ( u ; θ ) over the region U t is not closed-form.

Original: The first point is not only pertaining tothe Gaussian parameterization of P u .
Revised: The first point is not only pertaining to the Gaussian parameterization of P u .

Original: The scale-invariant property of the utility vector restricts thedistribution P u to a unit sphere or a simplex, and consequently, the likelihood function inevitablyinvolves the non-closed-form integration.
Revised: The scale-invariant property of the utility vector restricts the distribution P u to a unit sphere or a simplex, and consequently, the likelihood function inevitably involves the non-closed-form integration.

Original: This issue can be partially resolved by using the Monte
Revised: This issue can be partially resolved by using the Monte

Original: Carlo method to approximate the integration, and a good thing is that the same integrand is sharedacross all the observations.
Revised: Carlo method to approximate the integration, and a good thing is that the same integrand is shared across all the observations.

Original: Second, the likelihood function is not analytical in θ .
Revised: Second, the likelihood function is not analytical in θ .

Original: Thus this preventsthe usage of gradient-based algorithms to solve the problem and also makes it difficult to derivetheoretical guarantees for the maximum likelihood estimator.
Revised: Thus this prevents the usage of gradient-based algorithms to solve the problem and also makes it difficult to derive theoretical guarantees for the maximum likelihood estimator.

Original: We propose a Bayesian perspective for the problem: instead of identifying the parameter thatmaximizes the likelihood function, we directly draw samples from the posterior distribution.
Revised: We propose a Bayesian perspective for the problem: instead of identifying the parameter that maximizes the likelihood function, we directly draw samples from the posterior distribution.

Original: Wewill see shortly that the approach can be justified through a concentration property of the posteriordistribution.
Revised: We will see shortly that the approach can be justified through a concentration property of the posterior distribution.

Original: Suppose we have a prior distribution P 0 ( θ ) and then we can define the posteriordistribution by
Revised: Suppose we have a prior distribution P 0 ( θ ) and then we can define the posterior distribution by

Original: [Equation]
Revised: [Equation]

Original: With slight abuse of notation, we use P T ( · ) (or P 0 ( · ) ) to refer to both the density function and theprobability measure of the posterior (or prior) distribution.
Revised: With slight abuse of notation, we use P T ( · ) (or P 0 ( · ) ) to refer to both the density function and the probability measure of the posterior (or prior) distribution.

Original: We make the following assumption on theprior distribution.
Revised: We make the following assumption on the prior distribution.

Original: Assumption 2.
Revised: Assumption 2.

Original: We assume the concentration parameter κ ∗ ∈
Revised: We assume the concentration parameter κ ∗ ∈

Original: ( κ, ¯ κ ) where κ, ¯ κ are two knownpositive constants.
Revised: ( κ, ¯ κ ) where κ, ¯ κ are two known positive constants.

Original: The prior distribution P 0 ( θ ) is a uniform distribution on S n − 1 × ( κ, ¯ κ ) .
Revised: The prior distribution P 0 ( θ ) is a uniform distribution on S n − 1 × ( κ, ¯ κ ) .

Original: Theorem 1.
Revised: Theorem 1.

Original: Let
Revised: Let

Original: [Equation]
Revised: [Equation]

Original: where W ( · , · ) is the Wasserstein distance between two distributions supported on X × R n + × R + equipped with Euclidean metric.
Revised: where W ( · , · ) is the Wasserstein distance between two distributions supported on X × R n + × R + equipped with Euclidean metric.

Original: Then, under Assumptions 1-2,
Revised: Then, under Assumptions 1-2,

Original: [Equation]
Revised: [Equation]

Original: P
Revised: probability

Original: [Equation]
Revised: [Equation]

Original: [Equation]

Original: 0 in probability as T → ∞ , for any α ∈ [0 , 1 / 2] .

Original: Specifically, the following inequality holds
Revised: Specifically, the following inequality holds

Original: [Equation]
Revised: [Equation]

Original: where the expectation is taken with respect to the random distribution P T ( · ) (essentially, with respectto the dataset D T . )
Revised: where the expectation is taken with respect to the random distribution P T ( · ) (essentially, with respect to the dataset D T . )

Original: Theorem 1 justifies the approach of posterior sampling.
Revised: Theorem 1 justifies the approach of posterior sampling.

Original: We first remark that the Bayesian samplingapproach is just proposed to estimate the parameters, but all the theoretical results are stated infrequentist language.
Revised: We first remark that the Bayesian sampling approach is just proposed to estimate the parameters, but all the theoretical results are stated in frequentist language.

Original: The proof of Theorem 1 follows the standard analysis of the convergence ofthe posterior distribution [GGVDV00, CDBW21].
Revised: The proof of Theorem 1 follows the standard analysis of the convergence of the posterior distribution [GGVDV00, CDBW21].

Original: While similar results should also hold for otherunderlying distribution of P u , the von Mises-Fisher distribution provides much analytical conveniencein deriving the bound.
Revised: While similar results should also hold for other underlying distribution of P u , the von Mises-Fisher distribution provides much analytical convenience in deriving the bound.

Original: Each θ , together with the distribution of P a ,b , defines a distribution over thespace of ( x ∗ t , a t , b ) .
Revised: Each θ , together with the distribution of P a ,b , defines a distribution over the space of ( x ∗ t , a t , b ) .

Original: As we use observations ( x ∗ t , a t , b ) ’s to identify the true θ ∗ , the set Θ T 
Revised: As we use observations ( x ∗ t , a t , b ) ’s to identify the true θ ∗ , the set Θ T defines a set of indistinguishable θ ’s based on the Wasserstein distance between distributions of ( x ∗ t , a t , b ) .

Original: The set Θ T shrinks as T → ∞ .
Revised: The set Θ T shrinks as T → ∞ .

Original: The posterior sampling approach samples from the distribution133 P
Revised: The posterior sampling approach samples from the distribution P

Original: T ( · ) , and Theorem 1 states that the samples will be concentrated in set Θ T with high probability.
Revised: T ( · ) , and Theorem 1 states that the samples will be concentrated in set Θ T with high probability.

Original: The posterior distribution P T ( · ) is dependent on the dataset D T , so it is a random distribution itselfand the results in Theorem 1 are stated in either convergence in probability or expectation.
Revised: The posterior distribution P T ( · ) is dependent on the dataset D T , so it is a random distribution itself and the results in Theorem 1 are stated in either convergence in probability or expectation.

Original: As a sidenote, the Wasserstein distance in the theorem is not critical and it can be replaced with other distancessuch as the total variation distance and the Hellinger distance.
Revised: As a side note, the Wasserstein distance in the theorem is not critical and it can be replaced with other distances such as the total variation distance and the Hellinger distance.

Original: Intuitively, Theorem 1 says that for some θ such that the likelihood distribution P (( x ∗ t , a t , b ) | θ )differs from P (( x ∗ t , a t , b ) | θ ∗ ) to a certain extent, the posterior P T ( · ) is unlikely to generate suchθ .
Revised: Intuitively, Theorem 1 says that for some θ such that the likelihood distribution P (( x ∗ t , a t , b ) | θ ) differs from P (( x ∗ t , a t , b ) | θ ∗ ) to a certain extent, the posterior P T ( · ) is unlikely to generate such θ .

Original: In other words, the posterior distribution identifies the true θ ∗ up to some “equivalence” in thelikelihood distribution space.
Revised: In other words, the posterior distribution identifies the true θ ∗ up to some “equivalence” in the likelihood distribution space.

Original: The following corollary formalizes this intuition that if there is anequivalence between the likelihood distribution space and the underlying parameter space, then theposterior distribution is capable of identifying the true parameter.
Revised: The following corollary formalizes this intuition that if there is an equivalence between the likelihood distribution space and the underlying parameter space, then the posterior distribution is capable of identifying the true parameter.

Original: Corollary 1.
Revised: Corollary 1.

Original: Suppose
Revised: Suppose

Original: [Equation]
Revised: [Equation]

Original: for all θ ̸ = θ ∗ ∈ S n − 1 × [ κ, ¯ κ ] .
Revised: ∗ ∈ S n − 1 × [ κ, ¯ κ ] .

Original: Then the posterior distribution P T ( · ) will converge to the point-massdistribution on θ ∗ almost surely as T → ∞ .
Revised: Then the posterior distribution P T ( · ) will converge to the point-mass distribution on θ ∗ almost surely as T → ∞ .

Original: Moreover, suppose there exists a constant L > 0satisfying
Revised: Moreover, suppose there exists a constant L >satisfying

Original: [Equation]
Revised: [Equation]

Original: for all θ ̸ = θ ∗ ∈ S n − 1 × [ κ, ¯ κ ] [Equation]
Revised: for all θ ̸ = θ ∗ ∈ S n − 1 × [ κ, ¯ κ ] .

Original: Under Assumptions 1-2, the following inequality holds with probability no less than 1 −[Table] [Equation]
Revised: Under Assumptions 1-2, the following inequality holds with probability no less than 1 −

Original: [Equation]
Revised: [Equation]

Original: where θ T is sampled from the posterior distribution P T ( · ) .
Revised: where θ T is sampled from the posterior distribution P T ( · ) .

Original: The corollary states that when there is some equivalence between the likelihood distribution spaceand the parameter space as (1), the true parameter is identifiable.
Revised: The corollary states that when there is some equivalence between the likelihood distribution space and the parameter space as (1), the true parameter is identifiable.

Original: The first part of the corollary statesa consistency result that as long as all the θ ̸ = θ ∗ are distinguishable from θ ∗ through the likelihoodfunction, then the posterior sampling will eventually identify the true θ ∗ .
Revised: The first part of the corollary states a consistency result that as long as all the θ ̸ = θ ∗ are distinguishable from θ ∗ through the likelihood function, then the posterior sampling will eventually identify the true θ ∗ .

Original: The second part relates tothe convergence rate with an equivalence parameter L .
Revised: The second part relates to the convergence rate with an equivalence parameter L .

Original: In Assumption 1, we assume the constraint input ( a t , b t ) is generated from some distribution P a ,b .
Revised: In Assumption 1, we assume the constraint input ( a t , b t ) is generated from some distribution P a ,b .

Original: We note that Theorem 1 and Corollary 1 hold without any additional assumption on P a ,b , but thespace topology of the likelihood distribution is highly dependent on P a ,b .
Revised: We note that Theorem 1 and Corollary 1 hold without any additional assumption on P a ,b , but the space topology of the likelihood distribution is highly dependent on P a ,b .

Original: Specifically, a differentdistribution of ( a t , b t ) determines the separateness of the parameter space through affecting the valueof L in (1) or even its existence.
Revised: Specifically, a different distribution of ( a t , b t ) determines the separateness of the parameter space through affecting the value of L in (1) or even its existence.

Original: The value L of a specific distribution of P a ,b can be examinedthrough simulation.
Revised: The value L of a specific distribution of P a ,b can be examined through simulation.

Original: So if the learner has some flexibility in choosing the distribution of P a ,b , theoptimal choice would be the one that corresponds to a larger value of L.
Revised: So if the learner has some flexibility in choosing the distribution of P a ,b , the optimal choice would be the one that corresponds to a larger value of L.

Original: If the constraint input ( a t , b t )is not randomly generated but can be actively chosen as the query-based preference learning problem,the results in Theorem 1 and Corollary 1 still hold by conditioning on all the ( a t , b t ) ’
Revised: If the constraint input ( a t , b t ) is not randomly generated but can be actively chosen as the query-based preference learning problem, the results in Theorem 1 and Corollary 1 still hold by conditioning on all the ( a t , b t ) ’

Original: s. Unlike thedeterministic case where the utility vector u is fixed for all the observations, the stochastic nature ofthe problem setup here makes it generally very complicated to fully extract the benefit of designing( a t , b t ) ’s by the learner.
Revised: s. Unlike the deterministic case where the utility vector u is fixed for all the observations, the stochastic nature of the problem setup here makes it generally very complicated to fully extract the benefit of designing ( a t , b t ) ’s by the learner.

Original: We leave it as a future open question.
Revised: We leave it as a future open question.

Original: Corollary 2.
Revised: Corollary 2.

Original: Suppose P a ,b is a discrete distribution with a finite support.
Revised: Suppose P a ,b is a discrete distribution with a finite support.

Original: Let ( a , b ) be a new sample from P a ,b , i.e., independent from the dataset D T , and let θ T = ( µ T , κ T ) be a sample from the posterior distribution P T ( · ) .
Revised: Let ( a , b ) be a new sample from P a ,b , i.e., independent from the dataset D T , and let θ T = ( µ T , κ T ) be a sample from the posterior distribution P T ( · ) .

Original: Denote ˜ x ∗ and x ∗ as the optimal solutions of LP ( µ T , a , b ) and LP ( µ ∗ , a , b ) , respectively.
Revised: Denote ˜ x ∗ and x ∗ as the optimal solutions of LP ( µ T , a , b ) and LP ( µ ∗ , a , b ) , respectively.

Original: Then, under Assumptions 1-2, the following inequality holds with probability no less than 1 −
Revised: Then, under Assumptions 1-2, the following inequality holds with probability no less than 1 −

Original: [Equation]
Revised: [Equation]

Original: where the expectation is taken with respect to both the posterior distribution P T ( · ) and ( a , b ) .
Revised: where the expectation is taken with respect to both the posterior distribution P T ( · ) and ( a , b ) .

Original: Corollary 2 provides an upper bound on the predictive performance of the posterior distribution.
Revised: Corollary 2 provides an upper bound on the predictive performance of the posterior distribution.

Original: Specifically, we want to predict the optimal solution of a linear program specified by µ ∗ (proportionally to E [ u ] ) and a new sample of the constraint ( a , b ) , and the prediction ˜ x ∗ is based on a posterior sample.
Revised: Specifically, we want to predict the optimal solution of a linear program specified by µ ∗ (proportionally to E [ u ] ) and a new sample of the constraint ( a , b ) , and the prediction ˜ x ∗ is based on a posterior sample.

Original: We know from Theorem 1 that the posterior distribution concentrates on those θ ’s that areindistinguishable from the true θ ∗ in terms of the likelihood.
Revised: We know from Theorem 1 that the posterior distribution concentrates on those θ ’s that are indistinguishable from the true θ ∗ in terms of the likelihood.

Original: Speaking of the predictive performance,we only concern the distribution of the optimal solution (equivalently, the likelihood), but do notrequire the identification of exact true θ ∗ , so Corollary 2 does not require the condition (1) to hold.
Revised: Speaking of the predictive performance, we only concern the distribution of the optimal solution (equivalently, the likelihood), but do not require the identification of exact true θ ∗ , so Corollary 2 does not require the condition (1) to hold.

Original: Intuitively, the prediction of the optimal solution on a new observation ( a , b ) can be viewed as acondition distribution of the optimal solution given ( a , b ) .
Revised: Intuitively, the prediction of the optimal solution on a new observation ( a , b ) can be viewed as a condition distribution of the optimal solution given ( a , b ) .

Original: While the definition of Θ T in Theorem 1concerns the joint distribution of the optimal solution and ( a , b ) , the finite-support condition on P a ,bin Corollary 2 transforms the result on the joint distribution to the conditional distribution.
Revised: While the definition of Θ T in Theoremconcerns the joint distribution of the optimal solution and ( a , b ) , the finite-support condition on P a ,b in Corollary 2 transforms the result on the joint distribution to the conditional distribution.

Original:  δ -Corruption Case
Revised:  δ -Corruption Case

Original: In this section, we consider a setting where the utility vector is specified by
Revised: In this section, we consider a setting where the utility vector is specified by

Original: [Equation]
Revised: [Equation]

Original: where u ∗ ∈ S n − 1 is a fixed vector, δ ∈ [0 , 1] , and P ′ u is an arbitrary distribution that corrupts theinference of u ∗ .
Revised: where u ∗ ∈ S n − 1 is a fixed vector, δ ∈ [0 , 1] , and P ′ u is an arbitrary distribution that corrupts the inference of u ∗ .

Original: The deterministic setting of the revealed preference problem in literature can beviewed as the case of δ = 0 , and the Gaussian setting in the previous section can be viewed as thecase of δ = 1 and P ′
Revised: The deterministic setting of the revealed preference problem in literature can be viewed as the case of δ = 0 , and the Gaussian setting in the previous section can be viewed as the case of δ = 1 and P ′

Original: u being the von-Mises Fisher distribution.
Revised: u being the von-Mises Fisher distribution.

Original: In this setting, we do not aim to learnthe distribution of P ′ u , but rather our goal is to identify the vector u ∗ using the dataset D T .
Revised: In this setting, we do not aim to learn the distribution of P ′ u , but rather our goal is to identify the vector u ∗ using the dataset D T .

Original: A natural idea to estimate u ∗ is by solving the following optimization problem:
Revised: A natural idea to estimate u ∗ is by solving the following optimization problem:

Original: [Equation]
Revised: [Equation]

Original:  where the indicator function I E ( e )
Revised: u ) where the indicator function I E ( e )

Original: = 

Revised: =

Original: if e ∈ E and I E ( e )
Revised: if e ∈ E and I E ( e )

Original: = 

Revised: =

Original: otherwise.
Revised: otherwise.

Original: The rationale for theoptimization problem is that for the t -th observation, a vector u is consistent with the observation,i.e., x ∗ t is the optimal solution of LP ( u , a t , b t ) , if and only if I U t ( u )
Revised: The rationale for the optimization problem is that for the t -th observation, a vector u is consistent with the observation, i.e., x ∗ t is the optimal solution of LP ( u , a t , b t ) , if and only if I U t ( u )

Original: = 1 .
Revised: = 1 .

Original: Thus the optimizationproblem finds a vector u that is consistent with the maximal number of observations.
Revised: Thus the optimization problem finds a vector u that is consistent with the maximal number of observations.

Original: The objectivefunction is discontinuous in u , so we propose the simulated annealing algorithm – Algorithm 2 tosolve for its optimal solution.
Revised: The objective function is discontinuous in u , so we propose the simulated annealing algorithm – Algorithm 2 to solve for its optimal solution.

Original: We first build some connection between the optimization problem OPT δ and that of the deterministic setting with δ = 0 .
Revised: We first build some connection between the optimization problem OPT δ and that of the deterministic setting with δ = 0 .

Original: Let ¯ x ∗ t be the optimal solution of LP ( u ∗ , a t , b t ) and define
Revised: Let ¯ x ∗ t be the optimal solution of LP ( u ∗ , a t , b t ) and define

Original: [Equation]
Revised: [Equation]

Original: Then the deterministic setting of the revealed preference problem solves
Revised: Then the deterministic setting of the revealed preference problem solves

Original: [Equation]
Revised: [Equation]

Original: By the setup of the problem, u ∗ is an optimizer of ¯ OPT δ and the optimal objective value is T. Thefollowing proposition establishes that the optimization problem OPT δ is a contaminated version of¯ OPT δ and the effect that the contamination has on the objective function can be bounded using δ .
Revised: By the setup of the problem, u ∗ is an optimizer of ¯ OPT δ and the optimal objective value is T. The following proposition establishes that the optimization problem OPT δ is a contaminated version of ¯ OPT δ and the effect that the contamination has on the objective function can be bounded using δ .

Original: Proposition 1.
Revised: Proposition 1.

Original: Under Assumption 1, the following inequality holds
Revised: Under Assumption 1, the following inequality holds

Original: [Equation]
Revised: [Equation]

Original: When the constraints ( a t , b t ) ’s are generated from some distribution P a ,b , it can happen that there exist some vectors u ′ that are indistinguishable from u ∗ based on the observations D t as in the previous Gaussian case.
Revised: When the constraints ( a t , b t ) ’s are generated from some distribution P a ,b , it can happen that there exist some vectors u ′ that are indistinguishable from u ∗ based on the observations D T as in the previous Gaussian case.

Original: So, we do not hope for an exact recovery of u ∗ , but alternatively, we aim to derive a generalization bound for our estimator ˆ u .
Revised: So, we do not hope for an exact recovery of u ∗ , but alternatively, we aim to derive a generalization bound for our estimator ˆ u .

Original: Specifically, we define and analyze the accuracy
Revised: Specifically, we define and analyze the accuracy

Original: Acc (ˆ u ) :=
Revised: Acc (ˆ u ) :=

Original: E [ I U (ˆ u )] with U :=
Revised: E [ I U (ˆ u )] with U :=

Original: (cid:8) u ∈ S n − 1 : x ∗ is an optimal solution of LP ( u  , a , b ) (cid:9) where ˆ u is our estimator of u ∗ , ( a , b ) is a new sample from the distribution P a ,b , u  is a new samplefollowing the law of (2), and x ∗ is the optimal solution of LP ( u , a , b ) .
Revised: (cid:8) u ∈ S n − 1 : x ∗ is an optimal solution of LP ( u new , a , b ) (cid:9) where ˆ u is our estimator of u ∗ , ( a , b ) is a new sample from the distribution P a ,b , u new is a new sample following the law of (2), and x ∗ is the optimal solution of LP ( u , a , b ) .

Original: In other words, the quantity captures the probability that ˆ u is consistent with a new (unseen) observation, and we know that forthe true parameter, Acc ( u ∗ ) ≥ 1 − δ , which serves as a performance benchmark.
Revised: In other words, the quantity captures the probability that ˆ u is consistent with a new (unseen) observation, and we know that for the true parameter, Acc ( u ∗ ) ≥ 1 − δ , which serves as a performance benchmark.

Original: The challenge for deriving a bound on Acc (ˆ u ) arises from the discontinuity of the objective function
Revised: The challenge for deriving a bound on Acc (ˆ u ) arises from the discontinuity of the objective function

Original: OPT δ .
Revised: OPT δ .

Original: The existing methods for deriving generalization bound largely rely on the continuity and the
Revised: The existing methods for deriving generalization bound largely rely on the continuity and the

Original: Lipschitzness of the loss function.
Revised: Lipschitzness of the loss function.

Original: To make it worse, from Lemma 1, we know that U t is specified by ( V t , w t ) and the V t ’s are of different dimensions for different t ’s. To overcome these challenges, we devise the following γ -margin objective function.
Revised: To make it worse, from Lemma 1, we know that U t is specified by ( V t , w t ) and the V t ’s are of different dimensions for different t ’s. To overcome these challenges, we devise the following γ -margin objective function.

Original: Specifically, we first define a parameterized version of U t by
Revised: Specifically, we first define a parameterized version of U t by

Original: [Equation]
Revised: [Equation]

Original: where γ is a positive constant and e is an all-one vector.
Revised: where γ is a positive constant and e is an all-one vector.

Original: It is obvious that U t ( γ ) ⊂
Revised: It is obvious that U t ( γ ) ⊂

Original: U t .
Revised: U t .

Original: Accordingly, we define the γ -margin optimization problem by
Revised: Accordingly, we define the γ -margin optimization problem by

Original: [Equation]
Revised: [Equation]

Original: Proposition 2.
Revised: Proposition 2.

Original: Under Assumption 1, the following inequality holds with probability no less than 1 − ϵ ,
Revised: Under Assumption 1, the following inequality holds with probability no less than 1 − ϵ ,

Original: [Equation]
Revised: [Equation]

Original: for ϵ ∈ (0 , 1) .
Revised: for ϵ ∈ (0 , 1) .

Original: Proposition 2 relates the generalization accuracy of any arbitrary u with the corresponding objectivevalue of the γ -margin optimization problem.
Revised: Proposition 2 relates the generalization accuracy of any arbitrary u with the corresponding objective value of the γ -margin optimization problem.

Original: As γ increases, the objective function will decrease, sothe right-hand-side becomes tighter.
Revised: As γ increases, the objective function will decrease, so the right-hand-side becomes tighter.

Original: Importantly, the accuracy is defined by the original indicatorfunction (or equivalently, U t ), while the objective value is defined by the γ -margin indicator function(or equivalently, U t ( γ ) ).
Revised: Importantly, the accuracy is defined by the original indicator function (or equivalently, U t ), while the objective value is defined by the γ -margin indicator function (or equivalently, U t ( γ ) ).

Original: The implication is that when we optimize the γ -margin objective, we canstill obtain a bound on the original accuracy Acc ( u ) for sufficiently large γ .
Revised: The implication is that when we optimize the γ -margin objective, we can still obtain a bound on the original accuracy Acc ( u ) for sufficiently large γ .

Original: Theorem 2.
Revised: Theorem 2.

Original: Suppose P a ,b is a continuous distribution and it has a density function upper boundedby ¯ p .
Revised: Suppose P a ,b is a continuous distribution and it has a density function upper bounded by ¯ p .

Original: Then, under Assumption 1, the following inequality holds 
Revised: Then, under Assumption 1, the following inequality holds for sufficient large T

Original: [Equation]
Revised: [Equation]

Original: where ˆ u is one optimal solution of OPT δ ( γ ) with γ = a
Revised: where ˆ u is one optimal solution of OPT δ ( γ ) with γ = 1 4 nT 1 /

Original: [Equation]
Revised: [Equation]

Original: 2 T [Equation] [Equation] Theorem 2 states a generalization bound on the accuracy of ˆ u for continuous distributions of ( a , b ) .
Revised: Theorem 2 states a generalization bound on the accuracy of ˆ u for continuous distributions of ( a , b ) .

Original: From Proposition 2, a larger γ leads to a smaller gap between the accuracy and the γ -margin objectivefunction.
Revised: From Proposition 2, a larger γ leads to a smaller gap between the accuracy and the γ -margin objective function.

Original: Meanwhile, a smaller γ leads to a smaller gap between the optimal objective value OPT δ ( γ )and 1 − δ .
Revised: Meanwhile, a smaller γ leads to a smaller gap between the optimal objective value OPT δ ( γ ) and 1 − δ .

Original: In the extreme case of γ = 0 , E [ OPT δ (0)] =
Revised: In the extreme case of γ = 0 , E [ OPT δ (0)] =

Original: Acc ( u ∗ ) ≥ 1 − δ.
Revised: Acc ( u ∗ ) ≥ 1 − δ.

Original: Theorem 2 optimizes thevalue of γ to trade off these two aspects.
Revised: Theorem 2 optimizes the value of γ to trade off these two aspects.

Original: We note that the continuous distribution and the upper boundon the density function make it possible to bound the gap of the second aspect.
Revised: We note that the continuous distribution and the upper bound on the density function make it possible to bound the gap of the second aspect.

Original: Finally, we remarkthat the design of γ -margin loss function is inspired from the max-margin classifier, but the analysisis entirely different.
Revised: Finally, we remark that the design of γ -margin loss function is inspired from the max-margin classifier, but the analysis is entirely different.

Original: For the max-margin classifier, the introduction of the margin aims to make theunderlying loss function 1-Lipschitz so that a generalization bound using Rademacher complexitycan be derived.
Revised: For the max-margin classifier, the introduction of the margin aims to make the underlying loss function 1-Lipschitz so that a generalization bound using Rademacher complexity can be derived.

Original: But for here, our γ -margin objective function is still a discontinuous one.
Revised: But for here, our γ -margin objective function is still a discontinuous one.

Original:  Computational Aspects and Discussions
Revised:  Computational Aspects and Discussions

Original: In the previous section, we developed theoretical results for both Gaussian and δ -corruption settings.
Revised: In the previous section, we developed theoretical results for both Gaussian and δ -corruption settings.

Original: Now we discuss computational aspects with respect to the sampling of the posterior P T ( · ) and theoptimization of OPT δ ( γ ) .
Revised: Now we discuss computational aspects with respect to the sampling of the posterior P T ( · ) and the

Original: As mentioned earlier, the posterior sampling removes the complication ofoptimizing over θ in the maximum likelihood estimation, but still inevitably needs to deal with thesampling and numeric approximation of the likelihood function. Algorithm 1 describes a standard Metropolis–Hastings algorithm to sample from the posterior distribution P T  ( · ) .
Revised: 1: Input: dataset D T = { ( x ∗ t , a t , b t ) }

Original: In the numericalexperiments, we choose the proposal distribution Q to be a Gaussian random perturbation, i.e.,θ ′ = Proj ( θ ( k − 1) + ϵ ) where ϵ follows a Gaussian distribution and the projection ensures that θ ′
Revised: Tt =1 , number of iterations K 2:

Original: D T = { x ∗ t , a t t ) } Tt =1 , do 4: pre determined θ  | θ  k 
Revised: 3: for do 4: Draw a random θ ′ from a pre-determined proposal distribution Q ( θ ′ | θ ( k − 1) ) 5:

Original: Compute  acceptance rate: r = min (cid:26)
Revised: Compute the acceptance rate: r = min (cid:26)

Original: P T ( θ ′ )
Revised: P T ( θ ′ )

Original: P T ( θ ( k − 1) ) ,(cid:27) 6:
Revised: P T ( θ ( k − 1) ) ,(cid:27) 6:

Original: Set θ ( k ) =
Revised: Set θ ( k ) =

Original: (cid:26) θ ′ , w.p. r
Revised: (cid:26) θ ′ , w.p. r

Original: θ
Revised: θ

Original: ( k − 1) , w.p. 1 − r 7: 8: end 
Revised: ( k − 1) , w.p. 1 − r 7: 8: end for 9: Output: θ

Original: Output
Revised: ) optimization of OPT δ ( γ ) . As mentioned earlier, the posterior sampling removes the complication of optimizing over θ in the maximum likelihood estimation, but still inevitably needs to deal with the sampling and numeric approximation of the likelihood function. Algorithm 1 describes a standard

Original: Draw a proposal u from a predetermined proposal distribution Q ( acceptance rate: r = min (cid:40) exp (cid:40)η · (cid:32) T(cid:88) t = I U t ( γ ) ( u ′) − T (cid:88) t =
Revised: Metropolis–Hastings algorithm to sample from the posterior distribution P T ( · ) . In the numerical experiments, we choose the proposal distribution Q to be a Gaussian random perturbation, i.e., θ ′ =

Original: I U t ( γ ) ( u ( k − 1)  ) (cid:33)(cid:41) ,(cid:41) (3) 10: Set u ( k ) = (cid:26) u ′, w.p. r u ( k − 1) , w.p. 1 − r 11: end for 12: Output: u ( K ) stays on the sphere S n − 1 .
Revised: Proj ( θ ( k − 1) + ϵ ) where ϵ follows a Gaussian distribution and the projection ensures that θ ′ stays on the sphere S n − 1 .

Original: For the acceptance ratio, as the posterior distribution is not in closed form,a Monte Carlo subroutine is needed to estimate the ratio. 
Revised: For the acceptance ratio, as the posterior distribution is not in closed form, a Monte Carlo subroutine is needed to estimate the ratio. Algorithm

Revised: 1: Input: dataset D T = { ( x ∗ t ) , a t , b t } Tt =1 , margin γ , number of iterations K , interval length τ 2: Initialize an initial (temperature) η > 0 and the reduction rate c ∈ (0 , 1) 3: Randomly generate the first estimate u (0) 4: for

Revised: =

Revised: K do 5: then 6:

Original: Algorithm 2 presents a simulated annealing algorithm to solve the optimization problem OPT δ ( γ )in Section 4.
Revised: 7: end Draw a proposal u ′ from a predetermined proposal distribution Q ( u ′ | u ( k − 1) ) 9: Compute the acceptance rate: [Equation]

Revised: Set

Revised: [Equation]

Revised: 11: end for 12: Output: u ( K )

Revised: Algorithm 2 presents a simulated annealing algorithm to solve the optimization problem OPT δ ( γ ) in Section 4.

Original: It takes a similar MCMC routine as Algorithm 1 and we use the same Gaussianrandom perturbation for the proposal distribution Q .
Revised: It takes a similar MCMC routine as Algorithm 1 and we use the same Gaussian random perturbation for the proposal distribution Q .

Original: As the temperature parameter η decreases, thesampling distribution in Algorithm 2 will gradually be more concentrated on the optimal solution setof OPT δ ( γ ) .
Revised: As the temperature parameter η decreases, the sampling distribution in Algorithm 2 will gradually be more concentrated on the optimal solution set of OPT δ ( γ ) .

Original: Algorithm 2 can be implemented more efficiently than Algorithm 1 in that the likelihoodratio calculation in (3) is analytical.
Revised: Algorithm 2 can be implemented more efficiently than Algorithm 1 in that the likelihood ratio calculation in (3) is analytical.

Original: Table 1 reports some numerical results for the two algorithms.
Revised: Table 1 reports some numerical results for the two algorithms.

Original: For both the Gaussian and δ -corruptionsettings, we consider three distributions of P a ,b : (i) a uniform distribution where a ∼ Unif ([1 , 2] n )and b ∼ Unif ([1 , n ]) ; (ii) a discrete distribution where Unif ( { 1 , 2 } n ) and b ∼ Unif (1 , ..., n ) ; (iii) afixed- a distribution where a = (1 , ..., 1) ⊤ and b ∼ Unif (1 , ..., n ) .
Revised: For both the Gaussian and δ -corruption settings, we consider three distributions of P a ,b : (i) a uniform distribution where a ∼ Unif ([1 , 2] n ) and b ∼ Unif ([1 , n ]) ; (ii) a discrete distribution where Unif ( { 1 , 2 } n ) and b ∼ Unif (1 , ..., n ) ; (iii) a fixed- a distribution where a = (1 , ..., 1) ⊤ and b ∼ Unif (1 , ..., n ) .

Original: For the Gaussian case, the trueparameters ( µ ∗ , κ ∗ ) are uniformly generated from S n − 1 × [1 , 10] , and the accuracy is calculatedby ( µ ∗ x ∗ − µ ∗ ˜ x ∗ ) / µ ∗ x ∗ where x ∗ and ˜ x ∗ are defined in Corollary 2.
Revised: For the Gaussian case, the true parameters ( µ ∗ , κ ∗ ) are uniformly generated from S n − 1 × [1 , 10] , and the accuracy is calculated by ( µ ∗ x ∗ − µ ∗ ˜ x ∗ ) / µ ∗ x ∗ where x ∗ and ˜ x ∗ are defined in Corollary 2.

Original: For the Gaussian case,u ∗ is uniformly generated from S n − 1 and δ is set to be 0 . 1 , and the accuracy is calculated by
Revised: For the Gaussian case, u ∗ is uniformly generated from S n − 1 and δ is set to be 0 . 1 , and the accuracy is calculated by

Original: Acc (ˆ u ) /
Revised: Acc (ˆ u ) /

Original: Acc ( u ∗ ) where Acc ( u ) is defined in Section 4.
Revised: Acc ( u ∗ ) where Acc ( u ) is defined in Section 4.

Original: The numbers in Table 1 are reported basedon an average of 20 simulation trials, and we run both Algorithm 1 and Algorithm 2 for K = 1000iterations.
Revised: The numbers in Table 1 are reported based on an average of 20 simulation trials, and we run both Algorithm 1 and Algorithm 2 for K =iterations.

Original: We make the following observations from the numerical experiments.
Revised: We make the following observations from the numerical experiments.

Original: First, we remark that thetheoretical results in the previous sections provide strong guarantees on the convergence propertyof the posterior distribution.
Revised: First, we remark that the theoretical results in the previous sections provide strong guarantees on the convergence property of the posterior distribution.

Original: So the deterioration of the algorithm performance for the case whenn = 25 is solely caused by the inaccuracy of the approximate sampling in either Algorithm 1 or
Revised: So the deterioration of the algorithm performance for the case when n = 25 is solely caused by the inaccuracy of the approximate sampling in either Algorithm 1 or

Original: Algorithm 2.
Revised: Algorithm 2.

Original: Such inaccuracy can definitely be mitigated to some extent by a more efficient algorithmimplementation such as parallel computing.
Revised: Such inaccuracy can definitely be mitigated to some extent by a more efficient algorithm implementation such as parallel computing.

Original: However, we argue that the performance deterioration asn grows may point to a curse of dimensionality that is intrinsic to this estimation problem.
Revised: However, we argue that the performance deterioration as n grows may point to a curse of dimensionality that is intrinsic to this estimation problem.

Original: Essentially,we aim to estimate a high-dimensional distribution only through partial information, i.e., the sets
Revised: Essentially, we aim to estimate a high-dimensional distribution only through partial information, i.e., the sets

Original: U t ’s. On the positive end, the algorithms work well for n ≤ 10 , so if the learner has the powerof choosing ( a t , b t ) , s/he can break up the high-dimensional estimation problem into a number oflow-dimensional estimation problems by focusing on a handful of dimensions each time.
Revised: U t ’s. On the positive end, the algorithms work well for n ≤ 10 , so if the learner has the power of choosing ( a t , b t ) , s/he can break up the high-dimensional estimation problem into a number of low-dimensional estimation problems by focusing on a handful of dimensions each time.

Original: Moreover,we provide a visualization of the condition (1) in Figure 2 for n = 5 calculated based on simulation.
Revised: Moreover, we provide a visualization of the condition (1) in Figure 2 for n = 5 calculated based on simulation.

Original: The visualization supports the existence of L and thus the identifiability of the true parameters whenthe posterior sampling can be accurately fulfilled.n =n =n =n =(i) 99.9% 99.9% 98.8% 59.9%
Revised: The visualization supports the existence of L and thus the identifiability of the true parameters when the posterior sampling can be accurately fulfilled.

Original: Gaussian (ii) 99.9% 99.3% 96.9% 56.9% (iii) 99.9% 94.8% 92.6% 68.5% (i) 99.9% 96.7% 96.0% 55.7% δ -corru.

Original: (ii) 99.6% 97.9% 97.6% 63.1% (iii) 99.9%

Original: [Table]
Revised: [Table]

Original: We conclude our discussion with the following remarks.
Revised: We conclude our discussion with the following remarks.

Original: Query-based model with learner-chosen ( a t , b t ) :
Revised: Query-based model with learner-chosen ( a t , b t ) :

Original: In this paper, we have focused on the case wherethe constraints ( a t , b t ) ’s are stochastically generated.
Revised: In this paper, we have focused on the case where the constraints ( a t , b t ) ’s are stochastically generated.

Original: When the concentration parameter κ is knownfor the Gaussian case, there is an efficient way of learning µ through choosing ( a t , b t ) ’s
Revised: When the concentration parameter κ is known for the Gaussian case, there is an efficient way of learning µ through choosing ( a t , b t ) ’s

Original: (See the
Revised: (See the

Original: Appendix).
Revised: Appendix).

Original: In addition, the numerical experiments above also inspire a method that dismantlesthe high-dimensional estimation problem into a number of low-dimensional problems.
Revised: In addition, the numerical experiments above also inspire a method that dismantles the high-dimensional estimation problem into a number of low-dimensional problems.

Original: Anotherinteresting and important question is whether there exist designs of ( a t , b t ) ’s such that the posteriorsampling can be more efficiently carried out.
Revised: Another interesting and important question is whether there exist designs of ( a t , b t ) ’s such that the posterior sampling can be more efficiently carried out.

Original: Multiple constraints and nonlinear utility: The results in this paper are presented under the setting ofa linear objective and a single constraint.
Revised: Multiple constraints and nonlinear utility: The results in this paper are presented under the setting of a linear objective and a single constraint.

Original: We emphasize that the results can be easily generalized tothe case of multiple constraints and parameterized nonlinear utility.
Revised: We emphasize that the results can be easily generalized to the case of multiple constraints and parameterized nonlinear utility.

Original: Thus our result can be viewed asa preliminary effort to address the problem of stochastic inverse optimization.
Revised: Thus our result can be viewed as a preliminary effort to address the problem of stochastic inverse optimization.

Original: Our conjecture is thatwhen the set U t corresponds to a multiple-constraint problem, it may feature more structure and thusfacilitate the learning of the utility distribution.
Revised: Our conjecture is that when the set U t corresponds to a multiple-constraint problem, it may feature more structure and thus facilitate the learning of the utility distribution.

Original: Choice modeling: The stochastic utility model in our paper also draws an interesting connection withthe literature on choice modeling, which is a pillar for the pricing and assortment problems in revenuemanagement [TVRVR04, GT + 19].
Revised: Choice modeling: The stochastic utility model in our paper also draws an interesting connection with the literature on choice modeling, which is a pillar for the pricing and assortment problems in revenue management [TVRVR04, GT + 19].

Original: For most of the existing choice models, the learning problemcan be viewed as a special case of our study by letting a = (1 , ..., 1) ⊤ and b = 1 .
Revised: For most of the existing choice models, the learning problem can be viewed as a special case of our study by letting a = (1 , ..., 1) ⊤ and b = 1 .

Original: The results in ourpaper complement to this line of literature in developing a model where customers can make multiplepurchases. Checklist
Revised: The results in our paper complement to this line of literature in developing a model where customers can make multiple purchases.

Original: The checklist follows the references.

Original: Please read the checklist guidelines carefully for information onhow to answer these questions.

Original: For each question, change the default [TODO] to [Yes] , [No] or[N/A] .

Original: You are strongly encouraged to include a justification to your answer , either by referencingthe appropriate section of your paper or providing a brief inline description.

Original: For example:

Original: • Did you include the license to the code and datasets?

Original: [Yes]

Original: • Did you include the license to the code and datasets?

Original: [N/A]

Original: • Did you include the license to the code and datasets?

Original: [N/A]

Original: Please do not modify the questions and only use the provided macros for your answers.

Original: Note that the

Original: Checklist section does not count towards the page limit.

Original: In your paper, please delete this instructionsblock and only keep the Checklist section heading above along with the questions/answers below.

Original: For all authors...

Original: (a) Do the main claims made in the abstract and introduction accurately reflect the paper’s

Original: contributions and scope?

Original: [Yes]

Original: (b) Did you describe the limitations of your work?

Original: [Yes]

Original: (c) Did you discuss any potential negative societal impacts of your work?

Original: [N/A]

Original: (d) Have you read the ethics review guidelines and ensured that your paper conforms tothem?

Original: [Yes]

Original: If you are including theoretical results...

Original: (a) Did you state the full set of assumptions of all theoretical results?

Original: [Yes]

Original: (b) Did you include complete proofs of all theoretical results?

Original: [Yes] In the Appendix.3.

Original: If you ran experiments...

Original: (a) Did you include the code, data, and instructions needed to reproduce the main experi-

Original: mental results (either in the supplemental material or as a URL)?

Original: [Yes]

Original: (b) Did you specify all the training details (e

Original: g., data splits, hyperparameters, how theywere chosen)?

Original: [Yes](c)

Original: Did you report error bars (e

Original: g., with respect to the random seed after running experiments multiple times)?

Original: [No]

Original: (d) Did you include the total amount of compute and the type of resources used (e.g., typeof GPUs, internal cluster, or cloud provider)?

Original: [Yes]

Original: If you are using existing assets (e

Original: g., code, data, models) or curating/releasing new assets...

Original: (a) If your work uses existing assets, did you cite the creators?

Original: [N/A]

Original: (b) Did you mention the license of the assets?

Original: [N/A]

Original: (c) Did you include any new assets either in the supplemental material or as a URL?

Original: [N/A]

Original: (d) Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you’re

Original: using/curating?

Original: [N/A]

Original: (e) Did you discuss whether the data you are using/curating contains personally identifiable

Original: information or offensive content?

Original: [N/A]

Original: If you used crowdsourcing or conducted research with human subjects...

Original: (a) Did you include the full text of instructions given to participants and screenshots, if

Original: applicable?

Original: [N/A]

Original: (b) Did you describe any potential participant risks, with links to Institutional Review

Original: Board (IRB) approvals, if applicable?

Original: [N/A]

Original: (c) Did you include the estimated hourly wage paid to participants and the total amount

Original: spent on participant compensation?

Original: [N/A]