pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.13175 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-14 · 💻 cs.LG · cs.AI· q-bio.BM· q-bio.QM

Recognition: unknown

Pareto-Optimal Offline Reinforcement Learning via Smooth Tchebysheff Scalarization

Aadyot Bhatnagar, Ali Madani, Peter M{\o}rch Groth

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 14:49 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.LG cs.AIq-bio.BMq-bio.QM
keywords multi-objective reinforcement learningoffline RLPareto optimizationTchebysheff scalarizationdirect preference optimizationprotein engineeringreward standardization
0
0 comments X

The pith

Smooth Tchebysheff scalarization recovers non-convex Pareto fronts in multi-objective offline RL.

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

The paper addresses multi-objective offline RL where models must balance conflicting rewards, such as catalytic activity and specificity in proteins or helpfulness and harmlessness in chatbots. Linear scalarization of rewards provably misses non-convex portions of the Pareto front, so the authors instead scalarize the entire RL optimization problem using smooth Tchebysheff scalarization. They derive the STOMP algorithm, which standardizes each reward using its observed distribution and extends direct preference optimization to the multi-objective case. Validation on three autoregressive protein language models and three laboratory fitness datasets shows STOMP attaining the highest hypervolumes in eight of nine settings under both offline off-policy and generative evaluation protocols.

Core claim

By treating multi-objective RL itself as the object of scalarization and applying smooth Tchebysheff scalarization together with per-reward standardization from observed distributions, STOMP extends direct preference optimization to the multi-objective setting and produces policies whose hypervolumes exceed those of prior baselines in eight of nine protein-engineering tasks under both offline off-policy and generative evaluation.

What carries the argument

Smooth Tchebysheff scalarization applied to the vector-valued RL objective, which replaces linear weighting and enables recovery of non-convex Pareto regions while remaining differentiable.

If this is right

  • STOMP supplies a concrete algorithm for simultaneously optimizing multiple conflicting rewards in offline preference data without the coverage gaps of linear scalarization.
  • The same standardization-plus-smooth-Tchebysheff procedure can be applied to any offline RL method that already supports vector-valued returns.
  • On protein-engineering benchmarks the method improves hypervolume metrics across different base language models and dataset sizes.
  • The approach remains compatible with existing direct-preference-optimization training pipelines once the scalarization and normalization steps are inserted.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same framing could be tested in online or on-policy multi-objective RL to check whether the advantages persist when new data can be collected.
  • Because the scalarization is applied at the optimization level rather than the reward level, it may combine with other non-linear preference aggregation schemes beyond Tchebysheff.
  • The standardization step suggests a general recipe for making any vector reward comparable across tasks whose reward scales differ.

Load-bearing premise

That standardizing individual rewards based on their observed distributions, combined with smooth Tchebysheff scalarization, reliably recovers non-convex regions of the Pareto front in the offline multi-objective RL setting without introducing new biases.

What would settle it

An experiment on a controlled multi-objective task whose true Pareto front contains known non-convex segments, where STOMP policies achieve only the convex hull of attainable points, would falsify the central claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.13175 by Aadyot Bhatnagar, Ali Madani, Peter M{\o}rch Groth.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Visualizing different reward standardizations. The vertical dashed line indicates the mean [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Expected hypervolumes of k randomly sampled generations from models aligned using different preference optimization algorithms. Error bands correspond to one standard deviation, and the unaligned pretrained model is included as a baseline. STOMP’s generations have the highest expected hypervolumes (or are tied for the highest within error bands) in eight of nine settings. Pareto front), and we generate nov… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Pareto fronts of DHFR activity in the absence of TMP and in the presence of 50 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Pareto fronts of increase in on-target binding and decrease in off-target binding for PbrR. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Pareto fronts of α-amylase activity, stability, and expression in units of log2 -fold change. B Training Hyperparameters We train all models described in Section 4 for 782 batches with a batch size of 64. We used the AdamW optimizer [38, 44] with β1 = 0.9, β2 = 0.95, and BF16 mixed precision [52]. We linearly increased the learning rate to 10−5 over an initial warmup period of 79 batches, after which we de… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Large language models can be aligned with human preferences through offline reinforcement learning (RL) on small labeled datasets. While single-objective alignment is well-studied, many real-world applications demand the simultaneous optimization of multiple conflicting rewards, e.g. optimizing both catalytic activity and specificity in protein engineering, or helpfulness and harmlessness for chatbots. Prior work has largely relied on linear reward scalarization, but this approach provably fails to recover non-convex regions of the Pareto front. In this paper, instead of scalarizing the rewards directly, we frame multi-objective RL itself as an optimization problem to be scalarized via smooth Tchebysheff scalarization, a recent technique that overcomes the shortcomings of linear scalarization. We use this formulation to derive Smooth Tchebysheff Optimization of Multi-Objective Preferences (STOMP), a novel offline RL algorithm that extends direct preference optimization to the multi-objective setting in a principled way by standardizing the individual rewards based on their observed distributions. We empirically validate STOMP on a range of protein engineering tasks by aligning three autoregressive protein language models on three laboratory datasets of protein fitness. Compared to state-of-the-art baselines, STOMP achieves the highest hypervolumes in eight of nine settings according to both offline off-policy and generative evaluations. We thus demonstrate that STOMP is a powerful, robust multi-objective alignment algorithm that can meaningfully improve post-trained models for multi-attribute protein optimization and beyond.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 0 minor

Summary. The paper introduces STOMP, a novel offline multi-objective RL algorithm that applies smooth Tchebysheff scalarization to standardized rewards (using observed dataset statistics) to extend direct preference optimization beyond linear scalarization. It claims this recovers non-convex Pareto fronts and empirically demonstrates superior performance, achieving the highest hypervolumes in eight of nine settings on three autoregressive protein language models aligned to three laboratory protein fitness datasets, as measured by both offline off-policy and generative evaluations.

Significance. If the central construction holds, the work is significant for multi-objective offline RL and preference alignment, as it provides a principled alternative to linear scalarization that provably fails on non-convex fronts. The focus on protein engineering tasks adds practical value for real-world applications involving conflicting objectives such as activity and specificity.

major comments (1)
  1. Abstract: The claim that standardizing rewards from the finite offline dataset (via mean/std or min/max) combined with smooth Tchebysheff scalarization reliably recovers non-convex Pareto regions is load-bearing for the hypervolume superiority result, yet the manuscript provides no diagnostic (e.g., comparison of recovered fronts to the convex hull of linear baselines or analysis of coverage gaps) showing that empirical distributions are representative enough to avoid shifting utopia/nadir points and missing non-dominated segments.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive feedback on our manuscript. We address the major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [—] Abstract: The claim that standardizing rewards from the finite offline dataset (via mean/std or min/max) combined with smooth Tchebysheff scalarization reliably recovers non-convex Pareto regions is load-bearing for the hypervolume superiority result, yet the manuscript provides no diagnostic (e.g., comparison of recovered fronts to the convex hull of linear baselines or analysis of coverage gaps) showing that empirical distributions are representative enough to avoid shifting utopia/nadir points and missing non-dominated segments.

    Authors: We agree that the standardization of rewards from the finite offline dataset is central to our claims and that the manuscript would be strengthened by explicit diagnostics demonstrating recovery of non-convex Pareto regions. Our current evidence consists of the superior hypervolume results achieved by STOMP relative to linear scalarization baselines across eight of nine protein engineering settings. To directly address the concern about representativeness of the observed distributions and potential shifts in utopia/nadir points, we will revise the manuscript to include: (i) visualizations of the recovered Pareto fronts compared against the convex hull of solutions from linear baselines, and (ii) analysis of coverage gaps together with sensitivity checks on the choice of standardization (mean/std versus min/max). These additions will be placed in the experimental section and will clarify the conditions under which the approach reliably captures non-dominated segments. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity in derivation chain

full rationale

The paper proposes STOMP as a novel offline RL algorithm that applies smooth Tchebysheff scalarization to multi-objective preferences after standardizing individual rewards using statistics from the observed offline dataset. This construction is presented as an extension of direct preference optimization, with the central result being an empirical demonstration of higher hypervolumes versus baselines on protein tasks under offline and generative evaluations. No equations or steps reduce any claimed performance metric or first-principles result to an input quantity by construction; standardization is an explicit preprocessing choice rather than a fitted parameter whose output is then renamed as a prediction, and no load-bearing self-citations or uniqueness theorems are invoked to force the method. The derivation remains self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review reveals no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities beyond the standard RL and scalarization background; the standardization step relies on empirical distributions but is not framed as an additional fitted constant.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5579 in / 1105 out tokens · 33607 ms · 2026-05-10T14:49:25.493802+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

97 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages · 5 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Amini, T

    A. Amini, T. Vieira, and R. Cotterell. Direct Preference Optimization with an Offset. In L.-W. Ku, A. Martins, and V . Srikumar, editors,Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2024, pages 9954–9972, Bangkok, Thailand, 8 2024. Association for Computational Linguistics. URL https://aclanthology.org/2024.findings-acl.592/

    2024

  2. [2]

    Armer, H

    C. Armer, H. Kane, D. L. Cortade, H. Redestig, D. A. Estell, A. Yusuf, N. Rollins, A. Spinner, D. Marks, T. J. Brunette, P. J. Kelly, and E. DeBenedictis. Results of the Protein Engineering Tournament: An Open Science Benchmark for Protein Modeling and Design.Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics, 93(11):2005–2014, 2025. doi: https://doi.org/1...

    work page doi:10.1002/prot.70008 2005

  3. [3]

    Auger, J

    A. Auger, J. Bader, D. Brockhoff, and E. Zitzler. Theory of the hypervolume indicator: optimal µ- distributions and the choice of the reference point. InProceedings of the Tenth ACM SIGEVO Workshop on Foundations of Genetic Algorithms, FOGA ’09, page 87–102, New York, NY , USA, 2009. Association for Computing Machinery. ISBN 9781605584140. doi: 10.1145/15...

    work page doi:10.1145/1527125.1527138 2009

  4. [4]

    Y . Bai, A. Jones, K. Ndousse, A. Askell, A. Chen, N. DasSarma, D. Drain, S. Fort, D. Ganguli, T. Henighan, N. Joseph, S. Kadavath, J. Kernion, T. Conerly, S. El-Showk, N. Elhage, Z. Hatfield-Dodds, D. Hernandez, T. Hume, S. Johnston, S. Kravec, L. Lovitt, N. Nanda, C. Olsson, D. Amodei, T. Brown, J. Clark, S. McCandlish, C. Olah, B. Mann, and J. Kaplan. ...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  5. [5]

    Balandat, B

    M. Balandat, B. Karrer, D. Jiang, S. Daulton, B. Letham, A. G. Wilson, and E. Bakshy. BoTorch: A Framework for Efficient Monte-Carlo Bayesian Optimization. In H. Larochelle, M. Ranzato, R. Had- sell, M. Balcan, and H. Lin, editors,Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 33, pages 21524–21538. Curran Associates, Inc., 2020. URL https://pr...

    2020

  6. [6]

    Beume, C

    N. Beume, C. M. Fonseca, M. Lopez-Ibanez, L. Paquete, and J. Vahrenhold. On the Complexity of Computing the Hypervolume Indicator.IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, 13(5):1075– 1082, Oct 2009. ISSN 1941-0026. doi: 10.1109/TEVC.2009.2015575

    work page doi:10.1109/tevc.2009.2015575 2009

  7. [7]

    Bhatnagar, S

    A. Bhatnagar, S. Jain, J. Beazer, S. C. Curran, A. M. Hoffnagle, K. S. Ching, M. Martyn, S. Nayfach, J. A. Ruffolo, and A. Madani. Scaling Unlocks Broader Generation and Deeper Functional Understanding of Proteins. InThe Thirty-ninth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2025. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=yvGL2HP7pU

    2025

  8. [8]

    Borremans, J

    B. Borremans, J. L. Hobman, A. Provoost, N. L. Brown, and D. van der Lelie. Cloning and Func- tional Analysis of the PbrR Lead Resistance Determinant of Ralstonia metallidurans CH34.Journal of Bacteriology, 183(19):5651–5658, 2001. doi: 10.1128/jb.183.19.5651-5658.2001. URL https: //journals.asm.org/doi/abs/10.1128/jb.183.19.5651-5658.2001

    work page doi:10.1128/jb.183.19.5651-5658.2001 2001

  9. [9]

    V . J. Bowman. On the Relationship of the Tchebycheff Norm and the Efficient Frontier of Multiple-Criteria Objectives. In H. Thiriez and S. Zionts, editors,Multiple Criteria Decision Making, pages 76–86, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1976. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. ISBN 978-3-642-87563-2

    1976

  10. [10]

    Boyd and L

    S. Boyd and L. Vandenberghe.Convex optimization. Cambridge University Press, 2004

    2004

  11. [11]

    R. A. Bradley and M. E. Terry. Rank Analysis of Incomplete Block Designs: I. The Method of Paired Comparisons.Biometrika, 39(3/4):324–345, 1952. ISSN 00063444, 14643510. URL http://www.jstor. org/stable/2334029

    work page arXiv 1952

  12. [12]

    Brown, B

    T. Brown, B. Mann, N. Ryder, M. Subbiah, J. D. Kaplan, P. Dhariwal, A. Neelakantan, P. Shyam, G. Sastry, A. Askell, S. Agarwal, A. Herbert-V oss, G. Krueger, T. Henighan, R. Child, A. Ramesh, D. Ziegler, J. Wu, C. Winter, C. Hesse, M. Chen, E. Sigler, M. Litwin, S. Gray, B. Chess, J. Clark, C. Berner, S. McCandlish, A. Radford, I. Sutskever, and D. Amodei...

    1901

  13. [13]

    T. Chen, B. Xu, C. Zhang, and C. Guestrin. Training Deep Nets with Sublinear Memory Cost, 2016. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1604.06174. 10

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2016

  14. [14]

    Chennakesavalu, F

    S. Chennakesavalu, F. Hu, S. Ibarraran, and G. M. Rotskoff. Aligning Transformers with Continuous Feedback via Energy Rank Alignment. InThe Thirty-ninth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2025. URLhttps://openreview.net/forum?id=SXxlb1miXS

    2025

  15. [15]

    E. U. Choo and D. R. Atkins. Proper Efficiency in Nonconvex Multicriteria Programming.Mathematics of Operations Research, 8(3):467–470, 1983. ISSN 0364765X, 15265471. URL http://www.jstor.org/ stable/3689313

    work page arXiv 1983

  16. [16]

    P. F. Christiano, J. Leike, T. Brown, M. Martic, S. Legg, and D. Amodei. Deep Reinforcement Learning from Human Preferences. In I. Guyon, U. V . Luxburg, S. Bengio, H. Wallach, R. Fergus, S. Vishwanathan, and R. Garnett, editors,Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 30. Curran As- sociates, Inc., 2017. URL https://proceedings.neurips.c...

    2017

  17. [17]

    Das and J

    I. Das and J. Dennis. A Closer Look at Drawbacks of Minimizing Weighted Sums of Objectives for Pareto Set Generation in Multicriteria Optimization Problems.Structural Optimization, 14:63–69, 01 1997. doi: 10.1007/BF01197559

    work page doi:10.1007/bf01197559 1997

  18. [18]

    BERT: Pre-training of deep bidi- rectional transformers for language understanding

    J. Devlin, M.-W. Chang, K. Lee, and K. Toutanova. BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding. In J. Burstein, C. Doran, and T. Solorio, editors,Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers...

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/n19-1423 2019

  19. [19]

    Dosovitskiy, L

    A. Dosovitskiy, L. Beyer, A. Kolesnikov, D. Weissenborn, X. Zhai, T. Unterthiner, M. Dehghani, M. Min- derer, G. Heigold, S. Gelly, J. Uszkoreit, and N. Houlsby. An Image is Worth 16x16 Words: Transformers for Image Recognition at Scale. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, 2021. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=YicbFdNTTy

    2021

  20. [20]

    Ehrgott.Multicriteria optimization

    M. Ehrgott.Multicriteria optimization. Springer, Berlin, Germany, 2nd ed edition, 2005. ISBN 3540213988. URLhttp://rave.ohiolink.edu/ebooks/ebc/3540276599

    work page arXiv 2005

  21. [21]

    Eysenbach and S

    B. Eysenbach and S. Levine. Maximum Entropy RL (Provably) Solves Some Robust RL Problems. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2022. URL https://openreview.net/forum? id=PtSAD3caaA2

    2022

  22. [22]

    Fanton, L

    A. Fanton, L. J. Bartie, J. Q. Martins, V . Q. Tran, L. Goudy, C. Kernick, M. G. Durrant, J. Wei, Z. Armour- Garb, A. Pawluk, S. Konermann, A. Marson, L. A. Gilbert, T. L. Roth, and P. D. Hsu. Site-specific DNA in- sertion into the human genome with engineered recombinases.Nature Biotechnology, 11 2025. ISSN 1546-

    2025

  23. [23]

    URLhttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-025-02895-3

    doi: 10.1038/s41587-025-02895-3. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-025-02895-3

    work page doi:10.1038/s41587-025-02895-3

  24. [24]

    Faury, U

    L. Faury, U. Tanielian, E. Dohmatob, E. Smirnova, and F. Vasile. Distributionally Robust Counterfactual Risk Minimization.Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 34(04):3850–3857, 4 2020. doi: 10.1609/aaai.v34i04.5797. URL https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/AAAI/article/ view/5797

    work page doi:10.1609/aaai.v34i04.5797 2020

  25. [25]

    Fisch, J

    A. Fisch, J. Eisenstein, V . Zayats, A. Agarwal, A. Beirami, C. Nagpal, P. Shaw, and J. Berant. Robust Preference Optimization through Reward Model Distillation.Transactions on Machine Learning Research,

  26. [26]

    URLhttps://openreview.net/forum?id=E2zKNuwNDc

    ISSN 2835-8856. URLhttps://openreview.net/forum?id=E2zKNuwNDc

  27. [27]

    Fonseca, L

    C. Fonseca, L. Paquete, and M. Lopez-Ibanez. An Improved Dimension-Sweep Algorithm for the Hypervolume Indicator. In2006 IEEE International Conference on Evolutionary Computation, pages 1157–1163, 2006. doi: 10.1109/CEC.2006.1688440

    work page doi:10.1109/cec.2006.1688440 2006

  28. [28]

    Y . Fu, T. Chen, J. Chai, X. Wang, S. Tu, G. Yin, W. Lin, Q. Zhang, Y . Zhu, and D. Zhao. SRFT: A Single-Stage Method with Supervised and Reinforcement Fine-Tuning for Reasoning. InThe Fourteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2026. URL https://openreview.net/forum? id=n6E0r6kQWQ

    2026

  29. [29]

    Z. Gao, J. D. Chang, W. Zhan, O. Oertell, G. Swamy, K. Brantley, T. Joachims, J. A. Bagnell, J. D. Lee, and W. Sun. REBEL: reinforcement learning via regressing relative rewards. InProceedings of the 38th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, NIPS ’24, Red Hook, NY , USA,

  30. [30]

    ISBN 9798331314385

    Curran Associates Inc. ISBN 9798331314385

  31. [31]

    A. M. Geoffrion. Solving Bicriterion Mathematical Programs.Operations Research, 15(1):39–54, 2 1967. ISSN 0030-364X. doi: 10.1287/opre.15.1.39. 11

    work page doi:10.1287/opre.15.1.39 1967

  32. [32]

    J. L. Goffin. On convergence rates of subgradient optimization methods.Mathematical Programming, 13 (1):329–347, Dec 1977. ISSN 1436-4646. doi: 10.1007/BF01584346

    work page doi:10.1007/bf01584346 1977

  33. [33]

    Grathwohl, K

    W. Grathwohl, K. Swersky, M. Hashemi, D. Duvenaud, and C. Maddison. Oops I Took A Gradient: Scalable Sampling for Discrete Distributions. In M. Meila and T. Zhang, editors,Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 139 ofProceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 3831–3841. PMLR, 7 2021. URL https://proceedings.mlr.p...

    2021

  34. [34]

    A. P. Guerreiro and C. M. Fonseca. Computing and Updating Hypervolume Contributions in Up to Four Dimensions.IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, 22(3):449–463, 2018. doi: 10.1109/TEVC. 2017.2729550

    work page doi:10.1109/tevc 2018

  35. [35]

    C. F. Hayes, R. R ˘adulescu, E. Bargiacchi, J. Källström, M. Macfarlane, M. Reymond, T. Verstraeten, L. M. Zintgraf, R. Dazeley, F. Heintz, E. Howley, A. A. Irissappane, P. Mannion, A. Nowé, G. Ramos, M. Restelli, P. Vamplew, and D. M. Roijers. A practical guide to multi-objective reinforcement learning and planning.Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Syste...

    work page doi:10.1007/s10458-022-09552-y 2022

  36. [36]

    Holtzman, J

    A. Holtzman, J. Buys, L. Du, M. Forbes, and Y . Choi. The Curious Case of Neural Text Degeneration. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2020. URL https://openreview.net/forum? id=rygGQyrFvH

    2020

  37. [37]

    Hvarfner, E

    C. Hvarfner, E. O. Hellsten, and L. Nardi. Vanilla Bayesian Optimization Performs Great in High Dimensions. InForty-first International Conference on Machine Learning, 2024. URL https:// openreview.net/forum?id=OfT8MgIqHT

    2024

  38. [38]

    Ibarraran, S

    S. Ibarraran, S. Chennakesavalu, F. Hu, and G. M. Rotskoff. Efficient, Few-shot Directed Evolution with Energy Rank Alignment. InICLR 2026 Workshop on Generative and Experimental Perspectives for Biomolecular Design, 2026. URLhttps://openreview.net/forum?id=2Y6A9oyovP

    2026

  39. [39]

    S. Jain, J. Beazer, J. A. Ruffolo, A. Bhatnagar, and A. Madani. E1: Retrieval-Augmented Protein Encoder Models.bioRxiv, 2025. doi: 10.1101/2025.11.12.688125. URL https://www.biorxiv.org/content/ early/2025/11/13/2025.11.12.688125

    work page doi:10.1101/2025.11.12.688125 2025

  40. [40]

    X. Jia, Y . Ma, R. Bu, T. Zhao, and K. Wu. Directed evolution of a transcription factor PbrR to im- prove lead selectivity and reduce zinc interference through dual selection.AMB Express, 10(1):67, Apr 2020. ISSN 2191-0855. doi: 10.1186/s13568-020-01004-8. URL https://doi.org/10.1186/ s13568-020-01004-8

    work page doi:10.1186/s13568-020-01004-8 2020

  41. [41]

    D. P. Kingma and J. Ba. Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimization. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, 2015. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/1412.6980

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  42. [42]

    S. H. Lee, Y . Li, J. Ke, I. Yoo, H. Zhang, J. Yu, Q. Wang, F. Deng, G. Entis, J. He, G. Li, S. Kim, I. Essa, and F. Yang. Parrot: Pareto-optimal multi-reward reinforcement learning framework for text-to-image generation. InComputer Vision – ECCV 2024: 18th European Conference, Milan, Italy, September 29–October 4, 2024, Proceedings, Part XXXVIII, page 46...

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-031-72920-1_26 2024

  43. [43]

    K. Li, T. Zhang, and R. Wang. Deep Reinforcement Learning for Multiobjective Optimization.IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics, 51(6):3103–3114, 2021. doi: 10.1109/TCYB.2020.2977661

    work page doi:10.1109/tcyb.2020.2977661 2021

  44. [44]

    T-VSL: text-guided visual sound source localization in mixtures

    Y . Liang, J. He, G. Li, P. Li, A. Klimovskiy, N. Carolan, J. Sun, J. Pont-Tuset, S. Young, F. Yang, J. Ke, K. D. Dvijotham, K. M. Collins, Y . Luo, Y . Li, K. J. Kohlhoff, D. Ramachandran, and V . Navalpakkam. Rich Human Feedback for Text-to-Image Generation . In2024 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 19401–19411...

    work page doi:10.1109/cvpr52733.2024.01835 2024

  45. [45]

    X. Lin, X. Zhang, Z. Yang, F. Liu, Z. Wang, and Q. Zhang. Smooth Tchebycheff scalarization for multi-objective optimization. InProceedings of the 41st International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML’24. JMLR.org, 2024

    2024

  46. [46]

    Z. Liu, M. Lu, S. Zhang, B. Liu, H. Guo, Y . Yang, J. Blanchet, and Z. Wang. Provably Mitigating Overoptimization in RLHF: Your SFT Loss is Implicitly an Adversarial Regularizer. InThe Thirty-eighth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2024. URL https://openreview.net/ forum?id=2cQ3lPhkeO. 12

    2024

  47. [47]

    Loshchilov and F

    I. Loshchilov and F. Hutter. Decoupled Weight Decay Regularization. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, 2019. URLhttps://openreview.net/forum?id=Bkg6RiCqY7

    2019

  48. [48]

    López-Ibáñez.moocore: Core Mathematical Functions for Multi-Objective Optimization, 2026

    M. López-Ibáñez.moocore: Core Mathematical Functions for Multi-Objective Optimization, 2026. URL https://multi-objective.github.io/moocore/r/. R package version 0.2.0.900

    2026

  49. [49]

    Madani, B

    A. Madani, B. Krause, E. R. Greene, S. Subramanian, B. P. Mohr, J. M. Holton, J. L. Olmos, C. Xiong, Z. Z. Sun, R. Socher, J. S. Fraser, and N. Naik. Large language models generate functional protein sequences across diverse families.Nature Biotechnology, 41(8):1099–1106, Aug 2023. ISSN 1546-1696. doi: 10.1038/s41587-022-01618-2. URLhttps://doi.org/10.103...

    work page doi:10.1038/s41587-022-01618-2 2023

  50. [50]

    A. R. Mahmood, H. van Hasselt, and R. S. Sutton. Weighted importance sampling for off-policy learn- ing with linear function approximation. In Z. Ghahramani, M. Welling, C. Cortes, N. Lawrence, and K. Weinberger, editors,Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 27. Curran As- sociates, Inc., 2014. URL https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_...

    2014

  51. [51]

    Mao, F.-L

    X. Mao, F.-L. Li, H. Xu, W. Zhang, W. Chen, and A. T. Luu. Don’t Forget Your Reward Values: Language Model Alignment via Value-based Calibration. In Y . Al-Onaizan, M. Bansal, and Y .-N. Chen, editors,Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 17622–17642, Miami, Florida, USA, 11 2024. Association for Com...

    2024

  52. [52]

    How to make the most of your masked language model for protein engineering

    C. McCarter, N. Bhattacharya, S. W. Ober, and H. Elliott. How to make the most of your masked language model for protein engineering, 2026. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2603.10302

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  53. [53]

    Meier, R

    J. Meier, R. Rao, R. Verkuil, J. Liu, T. Sercu, and A. Rives. Language models enable zero-shot pre- diction of the effects of mutations on protein function. In M. Ranzato, A. Beygelzimer, Y . Dauphin, P. Liang, and J. W. Vaughan, editors,Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 34, pages 29287–29303. Curran Associates, Inc., 2021. URL htt...

    2021

  54. [54]

    Y . Meng, M. Xia, and D. Chen. SimPO: Simple Preference Optimization with a Reference-Free Reward. InThe Thirty-eighth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2024. URL https: //openreview.net/forum?id=3Tzcot1LKb

    2024

  55. [55]

    Micikevicius, S

    P. Micikevicius, S. Narang, J. Alben, G. Diamos, E. Elsen, D. Garcia, B. Ginsburg, M. Houston, O. Kuchaiev, G. Venkatesh, and H. Wu. Mixed Precision Training. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, 2018. URLhttps://openreview.net/forum?id=r1gs9JgRZ

    2018

  56. [56]

    Miettinen.Nonlinear multiobjective optimization

    K. Miettinen.Nonlinear multiobjective optimization. Kluwer, Boston, MA, USA, 1999

    1999

  57. [57]

    Mirdita, K

    M. Mirdita, K. Schütze, Y . Moriwaki, L. Heo, S. Ovchinnikov, and M. Steinegger. Colabfold: making protein folding accessible to all.Nature Methods, 19(6):679–682, Jun 2022. ISSN 1548-7105. doi: 10.1038/s41592-022-01488-1. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41592-022-01488-1

    work page doi:10.1038/s41592-022-01488-1 2022

  58. [58]

    Nijkamp, J

    E. Nijkamp, J. A. Ruffolo, E. N. Weinstein, N. Naik, and A. Madani. ProGen2: Exploring the boundaries of protein language models.Cell Systems, 14(11):968–978.e3, Nov 2023. ISSN 2405-4712. doi: 10.1016/j.cels.2023.10.002. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.cels.2023.10.002

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cels.2023.10.002 2023

  59. [59]

    Notin, A

    P. Notin, A. Kollasch, D. Ritter, L. van Niekerk, S. Paul, H. Spinner, N. Rollins, A. Shaw, R. Orenbuch, R. Weitzman, J. Frazer, M. Dias, D. Franceschi, Y . Gal, and D. Marks. Pro- teinGym: Large-Scale Benchmarks for Protein Fitness Prediction and Design. In A. Oh, T. Naumann, A. Globerson, K. Saenko, M. Hardt, and S. Levine, editors,Advances in Neural In...

    2023

  60. [60]

    Notin, R

    P. Notin, R. Weitzman, D. Marks, and Y . Gal. ProteinNPT: Improving Protein Property Prediction and Design with Non-Parametric Transformers. In A. Oh, T. Naumann, A. Globerson, K. Saenko, M. Hardt, and S. Levine, editors,Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 36, pages 33529–33563. Curran Associates, Inc., 2023. URL https://proceedings....

    2023

  61. [61]

    Ouyang, J

    L. Ouyang, J. Wu, X. Jiang, D. Almeida, C. L. Wainwright, P. Mishkin, C. Zhang, S. Agarwal, K. Slama, A. Ray, J. Schulman, J. Hilton, F. Kelton, L. Miller, M. Simens, A. Askell, P. Welinder, P. Christiano, J. Leike, and R. Lowe. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. In Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Neur...

    2022

  62. [62]

    A. B. Owen.Practical Quasi-Monte Carlo Integration. https://artowen.su.domains/mc/ practicalqmc.pdf, 2023

    2023

  63. [63]

    R. Y . Pang, W. Yuan, H. He, K. Cho, S. Sukhbaatar, and J. Weston. Iterative Reasoning Preference Optimization. In A. Globerson, L. Mackey, D. Belgrave, A. Fan, U. Paquet, J. Tomczak, and C. Zhang, editors,Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 37, pages 116617–116637. Cur- ran Associates, Inc., 2024. URL https://proceedings.neurips.cc/...

    2024

  64. [64]

    Paszke, S

    A. Paszke, S. Gross, F. Massa, A. Lerer, J. Bradbury, G. Chanan, T. Killeen, Z. Lin, N. Gimelshein, L. Antiga, A. Desmaison, A. Kopf, E. Yang, Z. DeVito, M. Raison, A. Tejani, S. Chilamkurthy, B. Steiner, L. Fang, J. Bai, and S. Chintala. PyTorch: An Imperative Style, High-Performance Deep Learning Library. In H. Wallach, H. Larochelle, A. Beygelzimer, F....

    2019

  65. [65]

    Precup, R

    D. Precup, R. S. Sutton, and S. Dasgupta. Off-Policy Temporal Difference Learning with Function Approximation. InProceedings of the Eighteenth International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML ’01, page 417–424, San Francisco, CA, USA, 2001. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc. ISBN 1558607781

    2001

  66. [66]

    Radford, J

    A. Radford, J. W. Kim, C. Hallacy, A. Ramesh, G. Goh, S. Agarwal, G. Sastry, A. Askell, P. Mishkin, J. Clark, G. Krueger, and I. Sutskever. Learning Transferable Visual Models From Natural Language Supervision. In M. Meila and T. Zhang, editors,Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 139 ofProceedings of Machine Learni...

    2021

  67. [67]

    Rafailov, A

    R. Rafailov, A. Sharma, E. Mitchell, C. D. Manning, S. Ermon, and C. Finn. Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Model. InThirty-seventh Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2023. URLhttps://openreview.net/forum?id=HPuSIXJaa9

    2023

  68. [68]

    C. E. Rasmussen and C. K. I. Williams.Gaussian Processes for Machine Learning. The MIT Press, 11

  69. [69]

    Adaptive Computation and Machine Learning, The MIT Press (2006)

    ISBN 9780262256834. doi: 10.7551/mitpress/3206.001.0001. URL https://doi.org/10.7551/ mitpress/3206.001.0001

    work page doi:10.7551/mitpress/3206.001.0001

  70. [70]

    D. M. Roijers, P. Vamplew, S. Whiteson, and R. Dazeley. A survey of multi-objective sequential decision- making.J. Artif. Int. Res., 48(1):67–113, 10 2013. ISSN 1076-9757

    2013

  71. [71]

    K. J. Romanowicz, C. Resnick, S. R. Hinton, and C. Plesa. Exploring antibiotic resistance in diverse homologs of the dihydrofolate reductase protein family through broad mutational scanning.Science Advances, 11(33):eadw9178, 2025. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.adw9178. URL https://www.science.org/ doi/abs/10.1126/sciadv.adw9178

    work page doi:10.1126/sciadv.adw9178 2025

  72. [72]

    Schulman, S

    J. Schulman, S. Levine, P. Abbeel, M. Jordan, and P. Moritz. Trust Region Policy Optimization. In F. Bach and D. Blei, editors,Proceedings of the 32nd International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 37 ofProceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 1889–1897, Lille, France, 7 2015. PMLR. URL https://proceedings.mlr.press/v37/schulman15.html

    2015

  73. [73]

    Proximal Policy Optimization Algorithms

    J. Schulman, F. Wolski, P. Dhariwal, A. Radford, and O. Klimov. Proximal Policy Optimization Algorithms. CoRR, abs/1707.06347, 2017. URLhttp://arxiv.org/abs/1707.06347

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  74. [74]

    doi: 10.1109/JPROC.2015.2494218

    B. Shahriari, K. Swersky, Z. Wang, R. P. Adams, and N. de Freitas. Taking the Human Out of the Loop: A Review of Bayesian Optimization.Proceedings of the IEEE, 104(1):148–175, 2016. doi: 10.1109/JPROC.2015.2494218

    work page doi:10.1109/jproc.2015.2494218 2016

  75. [75]

    MMseqs 2 enables sensitive protein sequence searching for the analysis of massive data sets

    M. Steinegger and J. Söding. Mmseqs2 enables sensitive protein sequence searching for the analysis of massive data sets.Nature Biotechnology, 35(11):1026–1028, Nov 2017. ISSN 1546-1696. doi: 10.1038/nbt.3988. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.3988

    work page doi:10.1038/nbt.3988 2017

  76. [76]

    R. E. Steuer and E.-U. Choo. An interactive weighted Tchebycheff procedure for multiple objective programming.Mathematical Programming, 26(3):326–344, Oct 1983. ISSN 1436-4646. doi: 10.1007/ BF02591870

    1983

  77. [77]

    N. Sun, S. Zou, T. Tao, S. Mahbub, D. Li, Y . Zhuang, H. Wang, X. Cheng, L. Song, and E. P. Xing. Mixture of Experts Enable Efficient and Effective Protein Understanding and Design.bioRxiv, 2024. doi: 10.1101/2024.11.29.625425. URL https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2024/12/03/2024. 11.29.625425. 14

    work page doi:10.1101/2024.11.29.625425 2024

  78. [78]

    R. S. Sutton and A. G. Barto.Reinforcement learning - an introduction. Adaptive computation and machine learning. MIT Press, 1998. ISBN 978-0-262-19398-6. URL http://www.incompleteideas. net/book/first/the-book.html

    1998

  79. [79]

    Tesauro, R

    G. Tesauro, R. Das, H. Chan, J. Kephart, D. Levine, F. Rawson, and C. Lefurgy. Managing Power Con- sumption and Performance of Computing Systems Using Reinforcement Learning. In J. Platt, D. Koller, Y . Singer, and S. Roweis, editors,Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 20. Cur- ran Associates, Inc., 2007. URL https://proceedings.neur...

    2007

  80. [80]

    Toussaint

    M. Toussaint. Robot trajectory optimization using approximate inference. InProceedings of the 26th Annual International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML ’09, page 1049–1056, New York, NY , USA,

Showing first 80 references.