Multi-preference alignment is often framed as scalarization: combine reward dimensions, then optimize. This leaves a temporal decision underspecified: when should each preference dimension enter policy optimization? We propose \methodname, a stability-guided active-set controller for controlled objective admission. \methodname starts from a small active set, retains admitted objectives, and expands when reward-deviation gates indicate low recent deviation or a patience budget is exhausted. A probing phase estimates a hard-to-easy order, and adaptive weighting emphasizes underperforming active dimensions. Automatic evaluations with 15 training preferences and 16 held-out benchmark columns show that \methodname obtains higher averages than simultaneous scalarization and shared-budget adapted baselines. Component ablations and expansion dynamics further support cumulative retention, gated admission, and probing-derived ordering as useful design choices in this setting. These results position objective-entry timing as a concrete control variable in reward-vector RLHF.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of STAGE . A probing phase orders preference dimensions by early gain and volatility. Training begins with a small active set Pk , optimizes it with adaptive preference weighting (Eq. 9 ), and expands when both the Instantaneous Stability Gate (ISG) and Windowed Stability Gate (WSG) are satisfied or the patience budget Tmax is reached.
Approach
Scheduled unit
How objectives enter training
Main distinction from STAGE
Reward Soups / multi-objective PPO
Reward weights or scalar reward
All dimensions are available from the start
Optimizes a fixed active objective inventory rather than controlling objective admission.
RCS-style filtering
Preference-pair eligibility
Pairs are retained if they satisfy multi-dimensional consistency
Sparse in our strict K=15 replication; scheduling occurs in data construction, not online active-set growth.
Curri-DPO
Response-pair difficulty
Easier or larger-gap pairs appear earlier
Curriculum is over examples/pairs, not over cumulative preference-dimension admission.
SPO-style sequential training
Single active objective stage
Objectives are visited in a fixed sequence
Switches objectives rather than retaining a growing active set.
STAGE
Cumulative active objective set
New dimensions enter after ISG/WSG deviation gates or patience
Controls objective entry during training while preserving previously admitted dimensions.
Table 1: Conceptual contrast between STAGE and common multi-objective or DPO-style baselines. STAGE schedules cumulative objective admission rather than only reward weights, pair eligibility, response-pair difficulty, or isolated objective stages.
Methods
Avg
Mis/Disinformation
Toxicity & Spam
Sensitivity
Helpfulness
Faithful
General Preference
CG
LUN
Sat.
HSOL
Jig.
OrB.
Ass.
Enr.
EDE.
FAS
OrB-h
Mor.
TQA(MC1).
Alp.
Are-h
Are-c
Qwen3-0.6B
Base Model
32.78
52.42
49.15
49.88
47.02
49.12
37.98
51.33
50.92
50.55
46.88
4.92
1.35
27.42
3.25
1.10
1.20
RCS-adapted
38.58 (+5.80)
50.38
67.15
62.74
58.95
49.11
48.36
48.02
55.03
51.26
49.39
15.11
15.36
30.12
7.08
2.80
6.40
SPO-adapted
6.63 (-26.15)
5.42
2.95
5.15
9.44
4.58
6.72
9.12
3.55
4.22
6.35
8.65
8.12
25.48
6.09
0.20
0.10
SPO-Reverse-adapted
5.23 (-27.55)
6.75
4.25
5.15
3.25
3.82
8.82
4.15
6.75
3.32
2.15
1.32
2.45
24.72
6.55
0.10
0.10
Table 2: Main results across two policy backbones and 16 held-out benchmark columns spanning six alignment categories. Qwen3-0.6B is the primary setting; Llama3-8B-Instruct is an auxiliary audit of whether the trend persists under a larger policy model from a different family. The Avg column is an unweighted arithmetic mean over heterogeneous columns, and adapted baselines use the shared data/model budget described in Section 4.1 . Gains in parentheses are relative to the base model within the same backbone.
Methods
Avg
Mis/Disinformation
Toxicity & Spam
Sensitivity
Helpfulness
Faithful
General Preference
CG
LUN
Sat.
HSOL
Jig.
OrB.
Ass.
Enr.
EDE.
FAS
OrB-h
Mor.
TQA(MC1).
Alp.
Are-h
Are-c
Base Model
32.78
52.42
49.15
49.88
47.02
49.12
37.98
51.33
50.92
50.55
46.88
4.92
1.35
27.42
3.25
1.10
1.20
APW only
38.13 (+5.35)
46.28
52.31
49.27
50.03
53.32
88.24
62.01
57.38
55.21
47.93
51.47
11.28
28.31
4.82
0.90
1.30
APW + ISG
41.66 (+8.88)
49.87
47.64
50.38
51.24
56.38
89.24
61.21
57.31
54.31
47.29
50.03
12.77
31.04
5.27
0.90
1.60
APW + WSG
41.63 (+8.85)
51.89
50.95
50.25
52.85
55.57
88.40
59.90
57.47
52.04
51.41
45.04
14.55
29.24
4.03
0.70
1.80
APW + ISG + WSG
42.22 (+9.44)
51.78
50.88
51.56
50.72
54.12
89.62
63.08
58.39
56.85
45.97
52.92
10.94
32.15
4.62
0.70
1.20
Table 3: Component ablation of STAGE . APW denotes Adaptive Preference Weighting, ISG denotes the Instantaneous Stability Gate, WSG denotes the Windowed Stability Gate, and Full STAGE adds probing-derived Preference Difficulty Ordering to the gated active-set controller.
Methods
Avg.
CG
LUN
Sat.
HSOL
Jig.
OrB.
Ass.
Enr.
EDE.
FAS
OrB-h
Mor.
TQA
Alp.
Are-h
Are-c
Base Model
32.92
50.58
50.09
50.03
49.88
49.34
37.56
51.51
50.79
50.43
47.01
4.80
1.27
27.59
3.33
1.30
1.20
RCS-adapted
38.99
53.24
67.32
63.62
61.83
49.29
48.24
48.15
54.91
51.14
49.52
15.24
15.24
29.99
7.19
2.70
6.30
SPO-adapted
6.61
5.56
2.87
5.03
9.58
4.47
6.87
9.00
3.47
4.31
6.27
8.79
7.99
25.34
5.97
0.20
0.10
SPO-Reverse-adapted
4.41
6.63
4.38
5.03
3.13
3.91
0.76
4.04
2.68
3.20
2.09
1.21
2.32
24.60
6.43
0.00
0.10
Curri-DPO-adapted
36.60
49.44
53.27
45.18
63.35
49.29
46.56
49.37
54.71
50.86
49.29
15.39
14.99
29.38
10.86
1.40
2.30
Vanilla Multi-objective PPO
39.51
48.57
57.82
51.31
71.09
72.55
54.20
67.75
60.57
51.50
49.66
5.38
1.54
29.38
5.09
3.00
2.70
Table 4: Scorer-sensitivity audit for the Qwen3-0.6B comparison using Qwen3-235B-A22B-Instruct instead of GPT-5-chat. STAGE remains the top method by average, supporting the stability of the main ranking across automatic evaluators.
Figure 2: Expansion dynamics on the development set. Blue shows the aggregate alignment score, orange shows the number of active objectives, and dotted lines mark stage transitions. The score rises as STAGE expands toward all 15 objectives, indicating that staged admission adds objectives while preserving aggregate progress.
Figure 3: Performance comparison across 16 benchmarks with different Tmax values. Radar charts (top) show performance across different preference categories. Bottom panel displays dataset-level scores with grouped bars for different Tmax and average trend line (red).
Appendix figures & tables4 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Dataset
Citation
Primary Focus / Description
Natural Reasoning
[ Yuan et al., 2025 ]
Complex reasoning in the wild.
Reasoning-20K
[ KingNish, ]
General reasoning tasks.
Social Reasoning
[ ProlificAI, ]
Social common sense and logic.
Omni-Math
[ Gao et al., 2024 ]
Olympiad-level mathematical problems.
General-Knowledge
[ MuskumPillerum, ]
Broad factual and conceptual queries.
PKU-SafeRLHF
[ Ji et al., 2024 ]
Safety and ethical alignment data.
Appendix
Table 5: Overview of datasets used for training query construction.
Category
Hyperparameter
Value
Trainer
Nodes
1
GPUs per node
8
Save frequency
50
Total Steps
600
Algorithm
Advantage estimator
GAE( λ =1, γ =1)
Curriculum Learning
Enabled
Appendix
Table 6: Hyperparameters for the main STAGE experiments implemented with the veRL framework.
#
Prompt Title
Link
0
Preference Label Mapping
Preference Label Mapping
1
Training Dataset Construction
Training Dataset Construction
2
Vanilla Multi-objective PPO
Vanilla Multi-objective PPO
3
Reward Soups
Reward Soups
4
RCS and Curri-DPO Rubric
RCS and Curri-DPO Rubric
5
Scoring for Generative Tasks
Scoring for Generative Tasks
Appendix
Table 10
Display name
Prompt / JSON key
Ethical compliance
ethical
Accuracy
accuracy
Helpfulness
helpfulness
Question assessment
question_assessment
Reasoning quality
reasoning
Multi-aspect analysis
multi_aspect
Appendix
Table 7: Canonical mapping between manuscript preference names and implementation keys.
Multi-objective language model alignment studies how to balance competing goals such as helpfulness, safety, truthfulness, fairness, and personalization.
Aligning large language models (LLMs) with human values is important for safe, efficient, and beneficial AI deployment. However, human values are multifaceted: helpfulness, harmlessness and humor trade off against one another, and different users want different trade-offs. Multi-objective alignment (MOA) addresses this by training a policy that can provide any point of the Pareto front, but existing methods either train one model per preference, interpolate a few separately aligned experts post hoc, or train a single conditioned model without considering which preferences it should be trained on. Since the hard regions of the preference simplex depend on the objectives at hand, existing methods leave them under-trained and do not get the most out of a single model. Therefore, we propose MAESTRO (Multi-objective Alignment via End-to-end STeering and Robust Optimization), which formulates MOA as a minimax problem over preference distributions and trains a single prompt-conditioned policy end-to-end with RL against an adversarial preference distribution: a Dirichlet distribution updated by online mirror descent toward the preferences the current policy serves worst, rather than on a fixed one. On HH-RLHF, BeaverTails and a summarization task, with up to three objectives, MAESTRO attains the best Pareto front on most tasks in a single training run, at the lowest training cost among the compared methods. The largest margins appear in the hard regions that a fixed preference distribution leaves under-trained, confirming that a single prompt-conditioned model is capable of covering the objective trade-offs on its own.
Minjae Lee, Kyunghyun Cho, Sangdon Park
GSAI POSTECH · Center for Data Science New York University · GSAI & CSE POSTECH
Multi-Objective Alignment aims to align Large Language Models (LLMs) with diverse and often conflicting human values by optimizing multiple objectives simultaneously. Existing methods predominantly rely on static preference weight construction strategies. However, rigidly aligning to fixed targets discards valuable intermediate information, as training responses inherently embody valid preference trade-offs even when deviating from the target. To address this limitation, we propose Meal, i.e., MEta ALigner, a bi-level meta-learning framework enabling bidirectional optimization between preferences and policy responses, generating instructive dynamic preferences for steadier training. Specifically, we introduce a preference-weight-net as a meta-learner to generate adaptive preference weights based on input prompts and update the preference weights as learnable parameters, while the LLM policy acts as a base-learner optimizing response generation conditioned on these preferences with rejection sampling strategy. Extensive empirical results demonstrate that our method achieves superior performance on several multi-objective benchmarks, validating the effectiveness of the dynamic bidirectional preference-policy optimization framework.
Test-time alignment methods offer a promising alternative to fine-tuning by steering the outputs of large language models (LLMs) at inference time with lightweight interventions on their internal representations. Recently, a prominent and effective approach, RE-Control (Kong et al., 2024), has proposed leveraging an external value function trained over the LLM's hidden states to guide generation via gradient-based editing. While effective, this method overlooks a key characteristic of alignment tasks, i.e. that they are typically formulated as learning from human preferences between candidate responses. To address this, in this paper we propose a novel preference-based training framework, Pref-CTRL, that uses a multi-objective value function to better reflect the structure of preference data. Our approach has outperformed RE-Control on two benchmark datasets and showed greater generalization on out-of-domain datasets. Our source code is available at https://github.com/UTS-nlPUG/pref-ctrl.