MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7124314397 · doi:10.65109/xqbl5396

Divide and Conquer: Provably Unveiling the Pareto Front with Multi-Objective Reinforcement Learning

2025· article· W7124314397 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Multi-Objective Optimization Algorithms
Canadian institutionsMila - Quebec Artificial Intelligence Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReinforcement learningPareto principleConvergence (economics)Sequence (biology)Multi-objective optimizationIterated functionPareto optimal

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An important challenge in multi-objective reinforcement learning is obtaining a Pareto front of policies to attain optimal performance under different preferences. We introduce Iterated Pareto Referent Optimisation (IPRO), which decomposes finding the Pareto front into a sequence of constrained single-objective problems. This enables us to guarantee convergence while providing an upper bound on the distance to undiscovered Pareto optimal solutions at each step. We evaluate IPRO using utility-based metrics and its hypervolume and find that it matches or outperforms methods that require additional assumptions. By leveraging problem-specific single-objective solvers, our approach also holds promise for applications beyond multi-objective reinforcement learning, such as planning and pathfinding.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.747
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.247 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it