Multi-objective Optimization Evolutionary Algorithms (MOEAs) face numerous challenges when they are used to solve Many-objective Optimization Problems (MaOPs). Decomposition-based strategies, such as MOEA/D, divide an MaOP into multiple single-optimization sub-problems, achieving better diversity and a better approximation of the Pareto front, and dealing with some of the challenges of MaOPs. However, these approaches still require one to solve a multi-criteria selection problem that will allow a Decision-Maker (DM) to choose the final solution. Incorporating preferences may provide results that are closer to the region of interest of a DM. Most of the proposals to integrate preferences in decomposition-based MOEAs prefer progressive articulation over the “a priori” incorporation of preferences. Progressive articulation methods can hardly work without comparable and transitive preferences, and they can significantly increase the cognitive effort required of a DM. On the other hand, the “a priori” strategies do not demand transitive judgements from the DM but require a direct parameter elicitation that usually is subject to imprecision. Outranking approaches have properties that allow them to suitably handle non-transitive preferences, veto conditions, and incomparability, which are typical characteristics of many real DMs. This paper explores how to incorporate DM preferences into MOEA/D using the “a priori” incorporation of preferences, based on interval outranking relations, to handle imprecision when preference parameters are elicited. Several experiments make it possible to analyze the proposal's performance on benchmark problems and to compare the results with the classic MOEA/D without preference incorporation and with a recent, state-of-the-art preference-based decomposition algorithm. In many instances, our results are closer to the Region of Interest, particularly when the number of objectives increases
