Multi-Objective Training Framework

• Multi-objective training frameworks are computational paradigms that optimize several conflicting objectives simultaneously by directly approximating the Pareto front.
• They employ methods like multi-gradient descent, evolutionary strategies, and preference-conditioned models to balance performance across meta-learning, NAS, federated learning, and RLHF.
• These frameworks enable practical trade-offs in domains such as fairness-aware modeling and physics-informed neural networks, ensuring convergence to robust Pareto optimal solutions.

A multi-objective training framework is a computational paradigm in which machine learning models or optimization pipelines are trained to simultaneously optimize multiple, typically conflicting, objectives. Rather than aggregating these objectives into a single scalarized loss (e.g., via weighted sum), multi-objective frameworks aim to directly explore, approximate, or cover the Pareto front in loss/objective space, thus discovering a set of solutions or model parameters that represent different optimal trade-offs. This paradigm is of central importance in meta-learning, neural architecture search, federated learning, recommendation systems, RLHF, fairness-aware modeling, and physics-informed neural networks. Advanced frameworks employ various algorithms, such as gradient-based Pareto stationarity, evolutionary approaches, preference-conditioning, and per-sample loss maximization, to manage the complex geometry of the multi-objective landscape.

1. Mathematical Formulation and Core Principles

Multi-objective training frameworks begin from the formalism of vector-valued objective functions, where the goal is to minimize a function $F(x) = (f_1(x), \dots, f_m(x))^T$ over a decision variable $x \in \mathcal{X}$, with $m > 1$ objectives. The solution concept is typically Pareto optimality: a point $x^*$ is Pareto-optimal if no other $y$ satisfies $f_i(y) \leq f_i(x^*)$ for all $i$ and $f_j(y) < f_j(x^*)$ for some $j$.

Bi-level settings arise naturally in meta-learning. In the MOML framework, meta-parameters $\alpha$ control task-specific parameters $\omega$, and the bi-level problem is: $$\min_{\alpha \in \mathcal{A}} F(\omega^*(\alpha), \alpha) \quad \text{s.t.} \quad \omega^*(\alpha) = \arg\min_{\omega} f(\omega, \alpha)$$ where $F$ is vector-valued over multiple meta-objectives (Ye et al., 2021).

Preference-conditioned mappings, PSL, and related approaches introduce a function $h_\phi(p)$ mapping a preference vector $p \in \Delta^{m-1}$ to a Pareto-optimal solution for the selected trade-off (Shang et al., 2024). In reinforcement learning and RLHF, policy optimization incorporates multiple reward functions or constraints, aiming to characterize the set of non-dominated policies over expected return vectors (Xiong et al., 21 Feb 2025).

Key indicators for Pareto map quality include hypervolume, coverage, and empirical trade-off curves, as well as theoretical guarantees of stationarity, convergence, or regret.

2. Algorithmic Strategies for Multi-Objective Training

A wide spectrum of algorithmic techniques are deployed, adapted to problem structure and efficiency demands.

1. Multi-Gradient Descent Algorithms (MGDA): These construct a common descent direction for all objectives by solving:

$$\min_{\gamma \in \Delta} \left\|\sum_{i=1}^m \gamma_i \nabla_\alpha F_i(\omega_K(\alpha_t), \alpha_t)\right\|_2^2$$

where $\Delta$ is the simplex, yielding updates that satisfy Pareto stationarity (Ye et al., 2021, Wu et al., 2021).

1. Evolutionary Multi-Objective Optimization (EMO): Algorithms such as NSGA-II and SMS-EMOA generate and evolve a population of candidate solutions, ranking them via Pareto dominance and diversity, and applying genetic operators (crossover, mutation) (Shang et al., 2024, Ito et al., 2023, Cava, 2023). NSGA-PINN and MO-PBT integrate genetic search and gradient updates to escape local minima or explore complex spaces (Lu et al., 2023, Dushatskiy et al., 2023).
2. Preference-Conditioned and Hypernetwork Approaches: PSL, CoPSL, and CLP parameterize mappings conditioned on preference or weight vectors, allowing for on-the-fly selection of trade-offs at inference. Architectures can leverage hard parameter sharing (as in CoPSL), expert mixing (CLP), or hypernetwork conditioning (Shang et al., 2024, Wang et al., 2024).
3. Surrogate Modeling and Accelerated Evaluation: In settings where candidate evaluation is expensive (CFD-ML model development), multi-output probabilistic surrogates are used to predict objective values, allowing for active selection and reduced simulation cost (Fang et al., 22 Dec 2025).
4. Hypervolume Maximization: Direct maximization of per-sample hypervolume ensures that model ensembles or multihead outputs span (and spread across) the true Pareto front, providing guarantees of coverage without user-specified trade-offs (Deist et al., 2021).

3. Theoretical Guarantees, Pareto Optima, and Convergence

The theoretical advances in multi-objective frameworks rest on the convergence of the algorithms to the Pareto front (or its subset), stationarity conditions, and sometimes on regret minimization.

• Vector Optimization Convergence: Under singleton lower-level solutions, Lipschitz-continuity, and coordinate-wise convexity, the convergence in set distance of computed minima to the true Pareto front can be shown (using Kuratowski–Painlevé set-convergence) (Ye et al., 2021).
• MGDA and Frank–Wolfe Guarantees: MGDA, by projecting gradients and optimizing convex combinations, ensures that updates are in directions that reduce all objectives, characterized by Karush–Kuhn–Tucker conditions for Pareto stationarity (Wu et al., 2021).
• Hypervolume Approximation: Maximizing per-sample HV generates outputs that approximate the entire front for each input. This is theoretically preferable to optimizing only the average loss front, which can miss nonconvex or asymmetric instances (Deist et al., 2021).
• Federated Settings: Federated multi-objective learning algorithms, such as FMGDA and FSMGDA, match the convergence rates of their centralized counterparts under mild regularity conditions, achieving deterministic or stochastic convergence to Pareto stationary points (Yang et al., 2023).
• Projection Optimization Meta-Algorithm: In RLHF settings, Pareto-optimality with non-linear or groupwise objectives is framed as projection onto a target set, and the regret is provably sublinear in the number of meta-iterations and base policy learning steps (Xiong et al., 21 Feb 2025).

4. Application Domains and Empirical Insights

The frameworks cover a broad range of applications, exploiting their capacity to manage and explore trade-offs without heavy manual tuning.

• Meta-Learning: MOML optimizes for robust few-shot learning objectives, domain transferability, adaptability, and adversarial robustness. Empirical results demonstrate significant trade-off control (e.g., increased adversarial robustness for small clean accuracy loss) and outperformance of scalarization-based baselines (Ye et al., 2021).
• Neural Architecture Search (NAS): OFA$^2$ demonstrates once-for-all supernetwork training with multi-objective EMO search to yield Pareto pools, outperforming random and fixed-constraint search, and allowing efficient post-hoc model selection for deployment (Ito et al., 2023).
• Fairness-Aware ML: FOMO and Multi-FR target social fairness versus accuracy trade-offs, utilizing multi-objective meta-models or multiple stakeholders' constraints, achieving higher hypervolumes and more desirable trade-offs over baselines (Cava, 2023, Wu et al., 2021).
• Multi-Task and Federated Learning: Federated FMOL enables distributed clients to optimize for local and global objectives, efficiently achieving Pareto stationarity with reduced communication (Yang et al., 2023). CoPSL leverages cross-problem synergies to simultaneously improve performance and resource efficiency (Shang et al., 2024).
• RLHF and LLM Alignment: Conditional Language Policy (CLP) and COS-DPO produce parametrically steerable LLMs for alignment, covering a wide range of reward trade-offs with a single model and strict Pareto domination over prior techniques (Wang et al., 2024, Ren et al., 2024).
• Physics-Informed Neural Networks: Both gradient-surgery methods and evolutionary strategies (NSGA-PINN) are deployed to enforce multiple physical constraints, boundary conditions, and data fidelity, enhancing solution robustness and escaping local minima more effectively than scalarization (Bahmani et al., 2021, Lu et al., 2023).
• Medical Imaging and Multimodal Representation: COMPRER integrates multiple objectives (multimodal contrastive, temporal consistency, clinical measure prediction, and reconstruction) on medical image modalities, boosting diagnostic and prognostic AUC and yielding out-of-distribution generalization (Lutsker et al., 2024).

5. Practical Considerations, Scalability, and Limitations

Implementation of multi-objective frameworks requires careful management of algorithmic and computational trade-offs.

• Hyperparameter Tuning and Weight Selection: MGDA, HV maximization, and preference-conditioned approaches reduce or eliminate manual objective weighting. However, choice of batch size, gradient projection parameters, or Pareto reference points remain non-trivial and may affect front coverage (Ye et al., 2021, Deist et al., 2021).
• Network Structure and Parameter Sharing: Hard-sharing (CoPSL) and parameter-efficient expert mixing (CLP) improve scalability and model efficiency, but too much coupling can cause objective conflicts. Monitoring gradient angles and adaptively reweighting can help resolve these issues (Shang et al., 2024, Wang et al., 2024).
• Population and Communication Cost: EMO methods require careful design to ensure diversity and convergence speed. Federated frameworks must balance local computation, bandwidth, and exposure of utility or task information (Yang et al., 2023, Dushatskiy et al., 2023).
• Computational Burden and Surrogate Models: In domains with expensive evaluations, probabilistic surrogates can dramatically accelerate training while maintaining final model quality, but their fidelity is limited by embedding quality and surrogate modeling assumptions (Fang et al., 22 Dec 2025).
• Inference and Post-hoc Flexibility: Preference-conditioned neural architectures and linearly transformable outputs (e.g., COS-DPO) enable on-the-fly trade-off specification without retraining. However, careful normalization and calibration of inputs (e.g., preference vectors, temperature settings) are required (Ren et al., 2024).

6. Comparative Metrics and Controlled Experimental Evaluations

Quantitative assessment of multi-objective frameworks relies on a consistent suite of metrics and controlled experiments.

• Hypervolume (HV): A dominant indicator for Pareto set quality, reflecting both optimality and diversity; higher is systematically better (Deist et al., 2021, Shang et al., 2024).
• Runtime and Model Footprint: CoPSL and related collaborative methods demonstrate reduced runtime, parameter count, and FLOPs for comparable or improved HV (Shang et al., 2024).
• Empirical Trade-off Surfaces: In supervised, reinforcement, and ranking tasks, multi-objective frameworks yield strictly larger and smoother Pareto fronts than scalarization and parameter-interpolation competitors (Ito et al., 2023, Wang et al., 2024, Ren et al., 2024).
• Robustness and Out-of-Distribution Generalization: Multi-objective pretraining (e.g., COMPRER) confers improved generalization and prognostic capability over larger, single-objective models (Lutsker et al., 2024).
• Fairness and Stakeholder Satisfaction: Methods such as FOMO and Multi-FR deliver superior balance between error and group fairness, confirmed by cross-dataset hypervolume numerics and Pareto contour visualizations (Cava, 2023, Wu et al., 2021).

---

• "Multi-Objective Meta Learning" (Ye et al., 2021)
• "Collaborative Pareto Set Learning in Multiple Multi-Objective Optimization Problems" (Shang et al., 2024)
• "OFA$^2$: A Multi-Objective Perspective for the Once-for-All Neural Architecture Search" (Ito et al., 2023)
• "Conditional Language Policy: A General Framework for Steerable Multi-Objective Finetuning" (Wang et al., 2024)
• "Optimizing fairness tradeoffs in machine learning with multiobjective meta-models" (Cava, 2023)
• "Multi-FR: A Multi-objective Optimization Framework for Multi-stakeholder Fairness-aware Recommendation" (Wu et al., 2021)
• "Multi-Objective Population Based Training" (Dushatskiy et al., 2023)
• "Training multi-objective/multi-task collocation physics-informed neural network with student/teachers transfer learnings" (Bahmani et al., 2021)
• "NSGA-PINN: A Multi-Objective Optimization Method for Physics-Informed Neural Network Training" (Lu et al., 2023)
• "Projection Optimization: A General Framework for Multi-Objective and Multi-Group RLHF" (Xiong et al., 21 Feb 2025)
• "MOMA-AC: A preference-driven actor-critic framework for continuous multi-objective multi-agent reinforcement learning" (Callaghan et al., 22 Nov 2025)
• "Multi-Objective Learning to Predict Pareto Fronts Using Hypervolume Maximization" (Deist et al., 2021)
• "COMPRER: A Multimodal Multi-Objective Pretraining Framework for Enhanced Medical Image Representation" (Lutsker et al., 2024)
• "A Surrogate-Augmented Symbolic CFD-Driven Training Framework for Accelerating Multi-objective Physical Model Development" (Fang et al., 22 Dec 2025)
• "Constrained Multi-Objective Optimization for Automated Machine Learning" (Gardner et al., 2019)
• "Achieving Equilibrium under Utility Heterogeneity: An Agent-Attention Framework for Multi-Agent Multi-Objective Reinforcement Learning" (Li et al., 12 Nov 2025)
• "COS-DPO: Conditioned One-Shot Multi-Objective Fine-Tuning Framework" (Ren et al., 2024)
• "Federated Multi-Objective Learning" (Yang et al., 2023)