Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Multi-Objective Preference Optimization: Improving Human Alignment of Generative Models

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read MOPO provably finds Pareto-optimal policies from pairwise preferences.

desk verdict The constrained preference-only formulation is promising, but the provable Pareto-optimality claim collapses on a false distributional assumption and a sign error; worth a major-revision round, not acceptance as is. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.10892 v2 pith:HFSUFVQX submitted 2025-05-16 cs.LG

Akhil Agnihotri , Rahul Jain , Deepak Ramachandran , Zheng Wen This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LG
keywords multi-objectivealignmentpreferenceoptimizationParetooptimalityconstrainedRLHFDPOsafetythresholdsKLregularization
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper tries to establish that a language model can be aligned to several conflicting human preferences at once—helpfulness, harmlessness, humour—without first collapsing pairwise comparisons into a scalar reward. It introduces MOPO, a constrained optimization method that maximizes one primary preference objective while keeping secondary preferences above tunable thresholds, and derives closed-form iterative updates from the Lagrangian dual. If the method works as claimed, it would be a preference-only algorithm that provably reaches Pareto-optimal policies, letting practitioners deploy one model that spans the trade-off frontier instead of retraining for each weight choice. The paper backs this with synthetic tests on known Pareto fronts, fine-tuning of a 1.3B-parameter language model on human-preference datasets, and ablations of the regularization and threshold schedules.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the dual of the constrained optimization problem: the multiplier vector $\lambda$ balances the primary objective against the secondary thresholds, and stationarity forces the optimal importance sampling ratio to be $\rho_\lambda^\star(y)=\exp(\tau^{-1}\mathbb{E}_{y'\sim\mu}[p(y\succ y')+\lambda^\top q(y\succ y')]-1)$. This exponential tilt of the reference policy is what makes the method preference-only, since it never requires a pointwise reward model. A second mechanism, the $\chi$-update, computes a lower bound on each constrained preference by solving a KL-constrained adversarial minimization, which is meant to keep the constraints satisfied despite estimation error in finite offline data.

What would settle it

Build a two-objective bandit with skewed reward differences, for example $r_1(y)=y$ with $\pi$ concentrated near $y=1$ and $\mu$ uniform on $[0,1]$, compute the preference objective $F_1(\pi)=\mathbb{E}[p_1(y\succ y')]$ directly, and compare it with $H_1(R_1(\pi)-R_1(\mu))$. Whenever $F_1$ is not a strictly increasing function of the reward gap, Lemma A.3.1 is false and the threshold-setting result Proposition A.3.3 loses its foundation; a numerical check on such an instance would settle the provable-Pareto claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that multi-objective preference alignment can be solved as a constrained KL-regularized optimization over importance sampling ratios. For a primary objective $p$ and secondary preferences $q$, the optimal ratio takes the closed form $\rho_\lambda^\star(y)=\exp(\tau^{-1}\mathbb{E}_{y'\sim\mu}[p(y\succ y')+\lambda^\top q(y\succ y')]-1)$, where $\lambda$ are Lagrange multipliers that enforce lower bounds $b$ on the secondary objectives. Against finite-sample noise, MOPO replaces the secondary preferences with a conservative lower bound computed by an adversarially chosen distribution inside a KL ball, then extracts the final policy by importance-weighted behavioral cloning. The paper argues that this procedure recovers policies on the Pareto front whenever the front is attainable, and that scalarization- or joint-data-based baselines miss large portions of that front on the same benchmarks.

Load-bearing premise

The proof that MOPO's preference constraints can be replaced by reward constraints assumes that, for every objective, the reward difference between the policy's action and the behavior policy's action is symmetrically distributed and uniform on a fixed-width interval centered at the mean reward gap; pairwise preference data generated by the paper's own preference model (Equation (25)) does not guarantee this.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the Pareto-optimality claim holds, alignment pipelines no longer need to scalarize conflicting objectives into a weighted sum; a single training run produces policies that span the trade-off frontier.
  • Because MOPO operates directly on pairwise preference data, it applies where reward models are unavailable or unreliable, such as safety-critical or fast-changing preference domains.
  • The closed-form updates keep the method scalable; the paper reports a 1.3B-parameter model whose outputs Pareto-dominate DPO, RiC, HaM, and MODPO on helpfulness/safety and summarization tasks.
  • The adaptive threshold rule $b=\beta^\top \hat{G}(\rho^{(t-t_0)})$ and the lagged reference policy remove the need to know exact constraint values in advance, making threshold selection a hyperparameter-robust procedure.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same checkpoint could be queried at different threshold vectors at deployment time, effectively turning one trained model into a family of safety policies that interpolate between conservative and permissive behavior without retraining.
  • The KL-ball lower bound is a robustness device that could be re-interpreted as a distribution-shift certificate; making the ball radius data-dependent might yield a finite-sample guarantee that the constraints hold on unseen preference evaluations.
  • Applying MOPO to preference labels grouped by annotator population would test whether a single threshold vector can serve multiple demographic groups or whether the Pareto front itself is population-dependent, a question the current evaluation does not address.
  • A direct stress test on non-uniform reward gaps—where the paper's symmetry assumption fails—would clarify how much of the empirical Pareto improvement survives outside the theoretical condition.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper addresses multi-objective alignment of generative models from pairwise preference data without pointwise rewards. It formulates a constrained KL-regularized problem (COP) that maximizes a primary preference objective subject to lower bounds on secondary preference objectives, derives a closed-form dual update for an importance-sampling ratio, and adds an adversarial lower-bound estimation step plus behavior-cloning policy extraction. The resulting algorithm, MOPO, is tested on synthetic bandit datasets with five canonical preference structures and on 1.3B-parameter phi-1.5 models fine-tuned on HH-RLHF and Reddit summarization data, where it is reported to Pareto-dominate RiC, HaM, MODPO, and DPO baselines. The abstract and Section 1 claim that MOPO 'achieves Pareto optimality provably.'

Significance. The problem is timely and practically important, and the high-level idea of enforcing lower bounds on secondary objectives directly in preference space is attractive. The empirical study is fairly extensive for a preprint, including ablations on the regularization coefficient, constraint relaxation, and reference lag. However, the central theoretical claims rest on Lemma A.3.1 and Proposition 3.2, both of which contain serious errors. Since the provable Pareto-optimality guarantee is the paper's headline contribution, the current manuscript cannot be accepted; the empirical results, while suggestive, do not compensate for the invalid theory.

major comments (4)
  1. [Appendix A.3, Lemma A.3.1] The lemma's assertion that z = r_k(x,y) - r_k(x,y') under (y,y') ~ (pi,mu) is symmetrically distributed around U = R_k(pi) - R_k(mu) and uniform on a fixed-width interval is not implied by Eq. (25) and is false for general reward functions and policies. For a concrete counterexample, take Y={0,1,2}, r_k(y)=y, mu=delta_0, sigma logistic, phi=id; then pi_a=delta_1 and pi_b=0.5 delta_0 + 0.5 delta_2 both give U=1, yet F_a = sigma(1) ~ 0.731 and F_b = 0.5 sigma(0) + 0.5 sigma(2) ~ 0.691. No strictly increasing H_k can satisfy F_k(pi) = H_k(U) for both policies. The equivalence between the preference-space problem (COP) and the reward-space problem (COP-R), and hence Proposition A.3.3's sufficient condition for Pareto optimality, is therefore unfounded.
  2. [Proposition 3.2 / Appendix A.4, Eq. (5)] The proposed optimal auxiliary policy in Eq. (5) has the wrong sign in the exponent. Minimizing E_{y~pi_k,y'~mu}[rho(y) q_k(y,y')] subject to KL(pi_k || pi_ref) <= epsilon gives pi*_k proportional to pi_ref exp(-chi^{-1} E_{y'~mu}[rho(y) q_k(y,y')]), not the positive-exponent expression printed. The stated solution maximizes the constrained objective rather than minimizing it, so the quantity called LowerBound(G(rho)) in Eq. (6) is actually an upper bound and does not enforce the intended safety constraint. In addition, the proof's approximation 'pi_k(y) rho(y) approximately pi(y)' is unjustified and is used without any condition ensuring pi_k is close to pi_ref.
  3. [Section 3.1, Algorithm 1; Section 5] The adaptive constraint schedule b = beta^T G_hat(rho^{(t-t0)}) in Algorithm 1 sets thresholds from the algorithm's own previous iterates. Proposition A.3.3, even if its assumptions held, gives a sufficient condition for a fixed b only; no theorem connects this adaptive feedback rule to Pareto optimality. Section 5 explicitly states that 'a rigorous theoretical analysis of MOPO' is future work, which directly qualifies the abstract's claim of achieving Pareto optimality 'provably.'
  4. [Section 4.1, Figure 4] The synthetic sanity check does not verify the claimed Pareto recovery. Figure 4 only plots three action probabilities over training; there are no reported reward vectors, no known Pareto front for the D1-D5 preference structures, and no quantitative metric such as hypervolume or distance to the Pareto set. The text's claim that MOPO 'exactly recovers - or provably approximates - the optimal policy' is therefore not substantiated by the presented experiment.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Appendix A.1, Eq. (14)] Equation (14) defines Pr(z=y|x,y,y') = r(x,y)/(r(x,y)+r(x,y')), which is not a valid probability when the rewards can be negative, as is the case for r2 = -sin(x) - y^2 in the same appendix; the main text's earlier use of exp(r) is the correct Bradley-Terry form and should be used consistently.
  2. [Appendix A.3, Lemma A.3.1] The notation H_k(u) = E_{z~Unif[-u,u]}[sigma o phi_k(z)] is inconsistent with its later use as H_k(R_k(pi) - R_k(mu)), and the remark about replacing Unif[-u,u] with a symmetric density rho_u(z) = rho(z-u) does not repair the confusion because H_k is not redefined accordingly.
  3. [Algorithm 1] Algorithm 1 takes b as input but line 10 overwrites it; the initialization of b and the precise role of the input beta are not specified, which makes the procedure difficult to reproduce exactly.
  4. [References] References [46] and [47] are duplicate entries for the same TRL repository and should be merged or removed.
  5. [Appendix A.6.2, Inference code] The 'Inference code' block implements f-divergence arithmetic that is not used anywhere in MOPO, and appears to be leftover material from a different method; it should be removed or clearly tied to the algorithm.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Self-referential adaptive threshold b=beta*G(rho_old) is the only circular element; core dual and lower-bound derivations are self-contained.

  1. self definitional [Section 3.1, 'Adaptive constraint schedule' paragraph and Algorithm 1, line 10; used with Eq. (10) and Eq. (13)]
    "We therefore, after every t0 steps, set the constraint vector only from the policy of the previously optimized iterates: b = β⊤bG (ρ(t−t0)) for some hyperparameter β ∈ (0, 1)K−1"

    The threshold b is defined as a scaled version of the same statistic \hat G that appears on the left-hand side of the constraint \hat G(ρ) ≥ b in Eq. (10). Thus the constrained feasible set is self-referential: it only requires \hat G(ρ_new) ≥ β \hat G(ρ_old). No externally specified or absolute safety threshold is ever provided; any update that keeps the secondary preference within a factor β of its previous value is feasible by construction. The paper's claim that this 'retains the theoretical lower bound interpretation of the constraints' therefore reduces the constraint to a bookkeeping condition on the algorithm's own iterates rather than an independently grounded input.

full rationale

Most of the derivation chain is self-contained and not circular. Problem (2) is a concave KL-regularized constrained optimization; Proposition 3.1 (Appendix A.4) derives the closed-form importance-sampling ratio via KKT conditions and strong duality; Proposition 3.2 (Appendix A.4) is a standard variational dual of the KL-constrained underestimation problem; and the empirical objective in Eq. (10) is the sample analog of Eq. (2). The appendix's 'provable Pareto optimality' argument is not a circular reduction: Lemma A.3.1 rests on an unstated and in general false assumption that reward differences are uniformly and symmetrically distributed around the reward gap, but that is a soundness defect, not a definitional equivalence. The one self-referential element is the adaptive constraint schedule in Section 3.1, where b is set from the algorithm's own previous estimate of the constrained preference statistic. Because this schedule is explicitly practical, is not used in the theoretical Pareto guarantee, and the empirical evaluation compares against external reward models and independent baselines, the circularity score is low rather than severe.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the assumption that preferences are generated by an underlying per-objective reward model (Eq. 25), on the validity of Lemma A.3.1 for translating preference constraints into reward constraints, and on the correctness of the Lagrangian derivation in Proposition 3.2. The lemma and the proposition both contain mathematical errors, so the contribution pulled from the prior literature is a standard Lagrangian scalarization wrapped in an unproven lower-bound construction.

free parameters (5)
  • KL regularization coefficient tau = 0.08 (Table 2)
    Controls the distance from the reference policy; tuned by hand.
  • Lower-bound KL radius epsilon = 0.15 (Table 2)
    Size of the KL ball for the adversarial policy; chosen by hand.
  • Constraint relaxation beta = 0.9995 (Table 2)
    Scales the adaptive constraint threshold; tuned by hand.
  • Reference policy lag t0 = 500 (Table 2)
    How often the reference policy is updated; tuned by hand.
  • Initial constraint vector b = Not reported
    Required as input to Algorithm 1; its initialization affects which Pareto point is reached.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption For each objective k there exists a reward r_k and strictly increasing phi_k, sigma such that p_k(y > y'|x) = sigma(phi_k(r_k(x,y) - r_k(x,y'))).
    Introduced in Appendix A.3 (Eq. 25) to connect preferences to rewards.
  • ad hoc to paper The distribution of r_k(x,y) - r_k(x,y') under (pi, mu) is symmetric around R_k(pi) - R_k(mu) and uniform over a fixed interval.
    Used in Lemma A.3.1; false in general.
  • ad hoc to paper pi_k(y) * rho(y) is approximately pi(y) in the proof of Proposition 3.2.
    Approximation justified only near pi_ref; used to derive the closed-form lower bound.
  • standard math Strong duality holds for the concave constrained problem (2).
    Assumed in Proposition A.4.1 to justify KKT conditions.
  • domain assumption Supp(pi) = Supp(pi_ref) for importance sampling.
    Stated in Section 3.
  • domain assumption The behavior policy mu is known and samples from pi_ref and mu are available in the offline dataset.
    Required for the empirical estimates in Section 3.1.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Multi-Objective Preference Optimization: Improving Human Alignment of Generative Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HFSUFVQX

@misc{pith2026250510892,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Multi-Objective Preference Optimization: Improving Human Alignment of Generative Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HFSUFVQX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.10892}
}
read the original abstract

Post-training LLMs with RLHF and preference optimization methods (e.g., DPO, IPO) has greatly improved alignment, yet these approaches assume a single objective. In reality, humans express multiple, often conflicting objectives, such as helpfulness and harmlessness, with no natural scalarization. We study the multi-objective preference alignment problem, where a policy must balance several objectives simultaneously. We propose Multi-Objective Preference Optimization (MOPO), a constrained KL-regularized framework that maximizes a primary objective while enforcing lower bounds on secondary objectives via tunable safety thresholds. MOPO operates directly on pairwise preferences without point-wise rewards, and admits simple closed-form iterative updates. Empirically, MOPO recovers Pareto-optimal policies on synthetic benchmarks and, when fine-tuned on human-preference data, yields multi-billion parameter models that achieve higher rewards and Pareto-dominate baselines, with stable and robust optimization dynamics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.10892 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustration of how a COP approach, and hence MOPO, achieves Pareto-optimal alignment. Consider this toy preference example with in￾put and action spaces X = Y = [0, 1]. For any triplet (x, y, y′ ) we draw a prefer￾ence label z ∈ {y, y′} from the Bradley￾Terry model BT(r) with Pr[z = y | x, y, y′ ] = exp(r(x, y))/(exp(r(x, y)) + exp(r(x, y′ ))), where r(·) is the underlying reward model [6]. We study two bi-objectiv… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Illustration of how constraint threshold initializa￾tion affects COP solutions. First, to find an optimal policy that lies in ΠP , it is crucial to set proper constraint values b such that the solution of Problem (1) contributes to the Pareto front. See Appendix A.2 and A.3 for the theoretical discussion, and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. MOPO: Impact of preference dis￾tribution (gray) over output space with lower-magnitude outputs being preferred with probability 1. πlb constrains lower bound of G(ρ), while πtyp constrains G(ρ) directly (typically). However, constraining the preference vector q(·) naively can result in constraint violation when deployed to the real environment. This is due to the fact that empiri￾cal importance sampling weighted pre… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Learning Curves of Action Probabilities of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Results of the Helpful Assistant task and the Reddit Summary task with normalized rewards. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Empirical Pareto fronts of MOPO under different regularization, constraint threshold updates, and lagged reference policy updates in the Helpful Assistant and Reddit Summary tasks. 4.3 Secondary Evaluation In this section, we take a deeper dive into the empirical perfo…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Illustration of how a COP approach, and hence MOPO, achieves Pareto-optimal alignment in comparison with DPO on D1 , D2 , DJ , and DC under two sets of reward models. τ = 0.1 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 r1(x, y)=e x + y y 1.75 1.50 1.25 1.00 0.75 0.50 0.25 0.00 r2 ( x, y ) = s…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparison of the KL-regularized policy learned using MOPO with the reference policy πref and the Pareto frontier, visualized in the reward space for two reward model pairs, A (top) and B (bottom). A.2 Sub-optimality of baselines. To begin, we list some common divergen…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Visualization of criteria for specifying constraint values. The expected return surface of π1 (π2), call it S1 (S2), in objective 1(2) is the max(0, jk − 1)th value in list P1 (P2) respectively. Therefore, specifying constraints values b1 ≥ S1 and b2 ≥ S2 is sufficient…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Multi-headed policy architecture for in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Multi-Objective Exploration and Preference Optimization via Mutual Information

    cs.CL 2026-07 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    MI-EPO maximizes joint conditional mutual information among responses, feedback, and preference vectors, using probabilistic routing to improve alignment and controllability in multi-objective LLM optimization.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Achiam, S

    J. Achiam, S. Adler, S. Agarwal, L. Ahmad, I. Akkaya, F. L. Aleman, D. Almeida, J. Altenschmidt, S. Altman, S. Anadkat, et al. Gpt-4 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774, 2023

    arXiv 2023

  2. [2]

    Agnihotri, R

    A. Agnihotri, R. Jain, and H. Luo. ACPO: A policy optimization algorithm for average MDPs with constraints. In R. Salakhutdinov, Z. Kolter, K. Heller, A. Weller, N. Oliver, J. Scarlett, and F. Berkenkamp, editors,Proceedings of the 41st International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 235 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 397–415. PML...

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Agnihotri, R

    A. Agnihotri, R. Jain, D. Ramachandran, and S. Singla. e-cop : Episodic constrained optimiza- tion of policies. 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 110909–110934. Curran Associates, Inc., 2024

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    S. M. Ali and S. D. Silvey. A general class of coefficients of divergence of one distribution from another. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological), 28(1):131–142, 1966

    work page 1966

  5. [5]

    Y . Bai, A. Jones, K. Ndousse, A. Askell, A. Chen, N. DasSarma, D. Drain, S. Fort, D. Ganguli, T. Henighan, et al. Training a helpful and harmless assistant with reinforcement learning from human feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.05862, 2022

    arXiv 2022

  6. [6]

    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

    1952

  7. [7]

    Z. Chen, Y . Deng, H. Yuan, K. Ji, and Q. Gu. Self-play fine-tuning converts weak language models to strong language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.01335, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    P. F. Christiano, J. Leike, T. Brown, M. Martic, S. Legg, and D. Amodei. Deep reinforcement learning from human preferences. Advances in neural information processing systems , 30, 2017

    2017

Show all 62 references
  1. [9]

    I. Csiszár. Eine informationstheoretische ungleichung und ihre anwendung auf beweis der ergodizitaet von markoffschen ketten. Magyer Tud. Akad. Mat. Kutato Int. Koezl., 8:85–108, 1964

    1964

  2. [10]

    I. Csiszár. On information-type measure of difference of probability distributions and indirect observations. Studia Sci. Math. Hungar., 2:299–318, 1967

    1967

  3. [11]

    R. Durrett. Probability: Theory and Examples, 4th Edition. Cambridge University Press, 2010

    2010

  4. [12]

    Efron and R

    B. Efron and R. J. Tibshirani. An introduction to the bootstrap. Chapman and Hall/CRC, 1994

    1994

  5. [13]

    Gheshlaghi Azar, Z

    M. Gheshlaghi Azar, Z. Daniel Guo, B. Piot, R. Munos, M. Rowland, M. Valko, and D. Ca- landriello. A general theoretical paradigm to understand learning from human preferences. In S. Dasgupta, S. Mandt, and Y . Li, editors,Proceedings of The 27th International Conference on Ar...

    2024

  6. [14]

    Grattafiori, A

    A. Grattafiori, A. Dubey, A. Jauhri, A. Pandey, A. Kadian, A. Al-Dahle, A. Letman, A. Mathur, A. Schelten, A. Vaughan, et al. The llama 3 herd of models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21783, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  7. [15]

    C. Guo, G. Pleiss, Y . Sun, and K. Q. Weinberger. On calibration of modern neural networks. In International conference on machine learning, pages 1321–1330. PMLR, 2017

    2017

  8. [16]

    Y . Guo, G. Cui, L. Yuan, N. Ding, Z. Sun, B. Sun, H. Chen, R. Xie, J. Zhou, Y . Lin, et al. Controllable preference optimization: Toward controllable multi-objective alignment. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.19085, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    C. F. Hayes, R. R˘adulescu, E. Bargiacchi, J. Källström, M. Macfarlane, M. Reymond, T. Ver- straeten, L. M. Zintgraf, R. Dazeley, F. Heintz, et al. A practical guide to multi-objective reinforcement learning and planning. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 36(1):26, 2022

    2022

  10. [18]

    E. J. Hu, Y . Shen, P. Wallis, Z. Allen-Zhu, Y . Li, S. Wang, L. Wang, W. Chen, et al. Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models. ICLR, 1(2):3, 2022. 11

    2022

  11. [19]

    J. Hu, L. Tao, J. Yang, and C. Zhou. Aligning language models with offline learning from human feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.12050, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Huang, A

    S. Huang, A. Abdolmaleki, G. Vezzani, P. Brakel, D. J. Mankowitz, M. Neunert, S. Bohez, Y . Tassa, N. Heess, M. Riedmiller, and R. Hadsell. A constrained multi-objective reinforcement learning framework. In A. Faust, D. Hsu, and G. Neumann, editors, Proceedings of the 5th Conf...

    2022

  13. [21]

    J. Jang, S. Kim, B. Y . Lin, Y . Wang, J. Hessel, L. Zettlemoyer, H. Hajishirzi, Y . Choi, and P. Ammanabrolu. Personalized soups: Personalized large language model alignment via post- hoc parameter merging. CoRR, abs/2310.11564, 2023

    arXiv

  14. [22]

    R. L. Keeney and H. Raiffa.Decisions with multiple objectives: preferences and value trade-offs. Cambridge university press, 1993

    1993

  15. [23]

    D. P. Kingma and J. Ba. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980, 2014

    2014 arXiv

  16. [24]

    K. Lee, X. Li, Q. Wang, J. He, J. Ke, M.-H. Yang, I. Essa, J. Shin, F. Yang, and Y . Li. Calibrated multi-preference optimization for aligning diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.02588, 2025

    2025

  17. [25]

    K. Li, T. Zhang, and R. Wang. Deep reinforcement learning for multiobjective optimization. IEEE transactions on cybernetics, 51(6):3103–3114, 2020

    2020

  18. [26]

    M. Li, Y . Zhang, W. Wang, W. Shi, Z. Liu, F. Feng, and T.-S. Chua. Self-improvement towards pareto optimality: Mitigating preference conflicts in multi-objective alignment. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.14354, 2025

    2025

  19. [27]

    Y . Li, S. Bubeck, R. Eldan, A. Del Giorno, S. Gunasekar, and Y . T. Lee. Textbooks are all you need ii: phi-1.5 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.05463, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  20. [28]

    R. Liu, Y . Pan, L. Xu, L. Song, P. You, Y . Chen, and J. Bian. C-morl: Multi-objective reinforce- ment learning through efficient discovery of pareto front. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.02236, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Mavromatis, P

    C. Mavromatis, P. Karypis, and G. Karypis. Pack of llms: Model fusion at test-time via perplexity optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.11531, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Miettinen

    K. Miettinen. Nonlinear multiobjective optimization, volume 12. Springer Science & Business Media, 1999

    1999

  23. [31]

    V . Mnih, K. Kavukcuoglu, D. Silver, A. Graves, I. Antonoglou, D. Wierstra, and M. Riedmiller. Playing atari with deep reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.5602, 2013

    2013 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Mukherjee, A

    S. Mukherjee, A. Lalitha, S. Sengupta, A. Deshmukh, and B. Kveton. Multi-objective alignment of large language models through hypervolume maximization.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.05469, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Munos, M

    R. Munos, M. Valko, D. Calandriello, M. G. Azar, M. Rowland, Z. D. Guo, Y . Tang, M. Geist, T. Mesnard, A. Michi, et al. Nash learning from human feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.00886, 18, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Nesterov.Lectures on Convex Optimization

    Y . Nesterov.Lectures on Convex Optimization. Springer Publishing Company, Incorporated, 2nd edition, 2018

    2018

  27. [35]

    Ouyang, J

    L. Ouyang, J. Wu, X. Jiang, D. Almeida, C. Wainwright, P. Mishkin, C. Zhang, S. Agarwal, K. Slama, A. Ray, et al. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. Advances in neural information processing systems, 35:27730–27744, 2022

    2022

  28. [36]

    R. Y . Pang, W. Yuan, H. He, K. Cho, S. Sukhbaatar, and J. Weston. Iterative reasoning preference optimization. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:116617–116637, 2024

    2024

  29. [37]

    B. Peng, C. Li, P. He, M. Galley, and J. Gao. Instruction tuning with gpt-4. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.03277, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  30. [38]

    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. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:53728–53741, 2023. 12

    2023

  31. [39]

    A. Rame, G. Couairon, C. Dancette, J.-B. Gaya, M. Shukor, L. Soulier, and M. Cord. Rewarded soups: towards pareto-optimal alignment by interpolating weights fine-tuned on diverse rewards. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:71095–71134, 2023

    2023

  32. [40]

    D. M. Roijers, P. Vamplew, S. Whiteson, and R. Dazeley. A survey of multi-objective sequential decision-making. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 48:67–113, 2013

    2013

  33. [41]

    Schulman, F

    J. Schulman, F. Wolski, P. Dhariwal, A. Radford, and O. Klimov. Proximal policy optimization algorithms. arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.06347, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  34. [42]

    R. Shi, Y . Chen, Y . Hu, A. Liu, H. Hajishirzi, N. A. Smith, and S. S. Du. Decoding-time language model alignment with multiple objectives. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:48875–48920, 2024

    2024

  35. [43]

    Stiennon, L

    N. Stiennon, L. Ouyang, J. Wu, D. Ziegler, R. Lowe, C. V oss, A. Radford, D. Amodei, and P. F. Christiano. Learning to summarize with human feedback. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:3008–3021, 2020

    2020

  36. [44]

    G. Team, A. Kamath, J. Ferret, S. Pathak, N. Vieillard, R. Merhej, S. Perrin, T. Matejovicova, A. Ramé, M. Rivière, et al. Gemma 3 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.19786, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Van Moffaert and A

    K. Van Moffaert and A. Nowé. Multi-objective reinforcement learning using sets of pareto dominating policies. The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 15(1):3483–3512, 2014

    2014

  38. [46]

    von Werra, Y

    L. von Werra, Y . Belkada, L. Tunstall, E. Beeching, T. Thrush, N. Lambert, and S. Huang. Trl: Transformer reinforcement learning. https://github.com/huggingface/trl, 2020

    2020

  39. [47]

    von Werra, Y

    L. von Werra, Y . Belkada, L. Tunstall, E. Beeching, T. Thrush, N. Lambert, S. Huang, K. Ra- sul, and Q. Gallouédec. Trl: Transformer reinforcement learning. https://github.com/ huggingface/trl, 2020

    2020

  40. [48]

    C. Wang, Y . Jiang, C. Yang, H. Liu, and Y . Chen. Beyond reverse KL: Generalizing direct preference optimization with diverse divergence constraints. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024

    2024

  41. [49]

    H. Wang, Y . Lin, W. Xiong, R. Yang, S. Diao, S. Qiu, H. Zhao, and T. Zhang. Arithmetic control of llms for diverse user preferences: Directional preference alignment with multi-objective rewards. In Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational L...

    2024

  42. [50]

    H. Wang, Y . Lin, W. Xiong, R. Yang, S. Diao, S. Qiu, H. Zhao, and T. Zhang. Arithmetic control of llms for diverse user preferences: Directional preference alignment with multi-objective rewards. CoRR, abs/2402.18571, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  43. [51]

    T. Wolf, L. Debut, V . Sanh, J. Chaumond, C. Delangue, A. Moi, P. Cistac, T. Rault, R. Louf, M. Funtowicz, et al. Huggingface’s transformers: State-of-the-art natural language processing. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.03771, 2019

    1910 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Wortsman, G

    M. Wortsman, G. Ilharco, S. Y . Gadre, R. Roelofs, R. G. Lopes, A. S. Morcos, H. Namkoong, A. Farhadi, Y . Carmon, S. Kornblith, and L. Schmidt. Model soups: averaging weights of multi- ple fine-tuned models improves accuracy without increasing inference time. In K. Chaudhuri,...

    2022

  45. [53]

    Z. Wu, Y . Hu, W. Shi, N. Dziri, A. Suhr, P. Ammanabrolu, N. A. Smith, M. Ostendorf, and H. Hajishirzi. Fine-grained human feedback gives better rewards for language model training. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:59008–59033, 2023

    2023

  46. [54]

    R. Yang, X. Pan, F. Luo, S. Qiu, H. Zhong, D. Yu, and J. Chen. Rewards-in-context: Multi- objective alignment of foundation models with dynamic preference adjustment, 2024

    2024

  47. [55]

    Z. Yuan, H. Yuan, C. Tan, W. Wang, S. Huang, and F. Huang. Rrhf: Rank responses to align language models with human feedback without tears. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.05302, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Zhang, J

    R. Zhang, J. Han, C. Liu, P. Gao, A. Zhou, X. Hu, S. Yan, P. Lu, H. Li, and Y . Qiao. Llama- adapter: Efficient fine-tuning of language models with zero-init attention. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.16199, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Zhang, S

    T. Zhang, S. G. Patil, N. Jain, S. Shen, M. Zaharia, I. Stoica, and J. E. Gonzalez. Raft: Adapting language model to domain specific rag. In First Conference on Language Modeling, 2024. 13

    2024

  50. [58]

    Zhong, C

    Y . Zhong, C. Ma, X. Zhang, Z. Yang, H. Chen, Q. Zhang, S. Qi, and Y . Yang. Panacea: Pareto alignment via preference adaptation for llms. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:75522–75558, 2024

    2024

  51. [59]

    Z. Zhou, J. Liu, J. Shao, X. Yue, C. Yang, W. Ouyang, and Y . Qiao. Beyond one-preference-fits- all alignment: Multi-objective direct preference optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.03708, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  52. [60]

    KX i=1 wiRi(y) # ≤ E y∼π′

    D. M. Ziegler, N. Stiennon, J. Wu, T. B. Brown, A. Radford, D. Amodei, P. Christiano, and G. Irv- ing. Fine-tuning language models from human preferences. arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.08593, 2019. 14 A Appendix Definition A.1. For any two policiesP,Q∈ ∆X Y such that Supp(P ) = Su...

    1909 arXiv

  53. [61]

    KX i=1 wiRi(y) # =p +q +r +s. (18) While by the selection ofk, we have E y∼πA,w

    = 0, (16) NX i=1 π⋆ 1(yi) = 1, π⋆ 1(yi)≥ 0, µ⋆ i≥ 0, µ⋆ iπ⋆ 1(yi) = 0. (17) Equation (16) implies −R1(yi) +∇f(N·π⋆ 1(yi)) +λ⋆−µ⋆ i = 0. Ifπ⋆ 1(y1)> 0, we have λ⋆ =R1(y1)−∇f(N·π⋆ 1(y1)) ≥p + 2r + 2s, 18 and then for∀j̸= 1 , µ⋆ j =−R1(yj) +∇f(N·π⋆ 1(yj)) +λ⋆ ≥−p−q−r−s +q +p + 2r...

  54. [62]

    reverse_kld

    with an additional KL penalty relative to the SFT policy: arg max πθ Ex∼D,y∼πθ(y|x) rϕ(x,y )−τ log πθ(y|x) πsft(y|x) , whereτ >0 is the KL penalty coefficient. 24 A.6.2 Training details. We summarize the key implementation details of text generation tasks in Table 2. This tabl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.