Skip to content
← Back to explorer

One Model for All: Multi-Objective Controllable Language Models

Qiang He, Yucheng Yang, Tianyi Zhou, Meng Fang, Mykola Pechenizkiy, Setareh Maghsudi · Apr 6, 2026 · Citations: 0

Data freshness

Extraction: Recent

Check recency before relying on this page for active eval decisions. Use stale pages as context and verify against current hub results.

Metadata refreshed

Apr 6, 2026, 7:48 AM

Recent

Extraction refreshed

Apr 6, 2026, 7:48 AM

Recent

Extraction source

Persisted extraction

Confidence unavailable

Abstract

Aligning large language models (LLMs) with human preferences is critical for enhancing LLMs' safety, helpfulness, humor, faithfulness, etc. Current reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) mainly focuses on a fixed reward learned from average human ratings, which may weaken the adaptability and controllability of varying preferences. However, creating personalized LLMs requires aligning LLMs with individual human preferences, which is non-trivial due to the scarce data per user and the diversity of user preferences in multi-objective trade-offs, varying from emphasizing empathy in certain contexts to demanding efficiency and precision in others. Can we train one LLM to produce personalized outputs across different user preferences on the Pareto front? In this paper, we introduce Multi-Objective Control (MOC), which trains a single LLM to directly generate responses in the preference-defined regions of the Pareto front. Our approach introduces multi-objective optimization (MOO) principles into RLHF to train an LLM as a preference-conditioned policy network. We improve the computational efficiency of MOC by applying MOO at the policy level, enabling us to fine-tune a 7B-parameter model on a single A6000 GPU. Extensive experiments demonstrate the advantages of MOC over baselines in three aspects: (i) controllability of LLM outputs w.r.t. user preferences on the trade-off among multiple rewards; (ii) quality and diversity of LLM outputs, measured by the hyper-volume of multiple solutions achieved; and (iii) generalization to unseen preferences. These results highlight MOC's potential for real-world applications requiring scalable and customizable LLMs.

Low-signal caution for protocol decisions

Use this page for context, then validate protocol choices against stronger HFEPX references before implementation decisions.

  • Structured extraction is still processing; current fields are metadata-first.

HFEPX Relevance Assessment

Signal extraction is still processing. This page currently shows metadata-first guidance until structured protocol fields are ready.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A provisional background reference while structured extraction finishes.

Main weakness

Structured extraction is still processing; current fields are metadata-first.

Trust level

Provisional

Eval-Fit Score

Unavailable

Eval-fit score is unavailable until extraction completes.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Weak / implicit signal

HFEPX Fit

Provisional (processing)

Extraction confidence: Provisional

Field Provenance & Confidence

Each key protocol field shows extraction state, confidence band, and data source so you can decide whether to trust it directly or validate from full text.

Human Feedback Types

provisional

Pairwise preference

Confidence: Provisional Source: Persisted extraction inferred

Directly usable for protocol triage.

Evidence snippet: Aligning large language models (LLMs) with human preferences is critical for enhancing LLMs' safety, helpfulness, humor, faithfulness, etc.

Evaluation Modes

provisional

None explicit

Confidence: Provisional Source: Persisted extraction inferred

Validate eval design from full paper text.

Evidence snippet: Aligning large language models (LLMs) with human preferences is critical for enhancing LLMs' safety, helpfulness, humor, faithfulness, etc.

Quality Controls

provisional

Not reported

Confidence: Provisional Source: Persisted extraction inferred

No explicit QC controls found.

Evidence snippet: Aligning large language models (LLMs) with human preferences is critical for enhancing LLMs' safety, helpfulness, humor, faithfulness, etc.

Benchmarks / Datasets

provisional

Not extracted

Confidence: Provisional Source: Persisted extraction inferred

No benchmark anchors detected.

Evidence snippet: Aligning large language models (LLMs) with human preferences is critical for enhancing LLMs' safety, helpfulness, humor, faithfulness, etc.

Reported Metrics

provisional

Not extracted

Confidence: Provisional Source: Persisted extraction inferred

No metric anchors detected.

Evidence snippet: Aligning large language models (LLMs) with human preferences is critical for enhancing LLMs' safety, helpfulness, humor, faithfulness, etc.

Rater Population

provisional

Unknown

Confidence: Provisional Source: Persisted extraction inferred

Rater source not explicitly reported.

Evidence snippet: Aligning large language models (LLMs) with human preferences is critical for enhancing LLMs' safety, helpfulness, humor, faithfulness, etc.

Human Data Lens

Structured extraction is still processing. Below are provisional signals inferred from abstract text only.

  • Potential human-data signal: Pairwise preference
  • Potential benchmark anchors: No benchmark names detected in abstract.
  • Abstract highlights: 3 key sentence(s) extracted below.

Evaluation Lens

Evaluation fields are currently inferred heuristically from abstract text.

  • Potential evaluation modes: No explicit eval keywords detected.
  • Potential metric signals: No metric keywords detected.
  • Confidence: Provisional (metadata-only fallback).

Research Brief

Deterministic synthesis

Aligning large language models (LLMs) with human preferences is critical for enhancing LLMs' safety, helpfulness, humor, faithfulness, etc.

Generated Apr 6, 2026, 7:48 AM · Grounded in abstract + metadata only

Key Takeaways

  • Aligning large language models (LLMs) with human preferences is critical for enhancing LLMs' safety, helpfulness, humor, faithfulness, etc.
  • Current reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) mainly focuses on a fixed reward learned from average human ratings, which may weaken the adaptability and controllability of varying preferences.
  • However, creating personalized LLMs requires aligning LLMs with individual human preferences, which is non-trivial due to the scarce data per user and the diversity of user preferences in multi-objective trade-offs, varying from emphasizing empathy in certain contexts to demanding efficiency and precision in others.

Researcher Actions

  • Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
  • Check the full text for explicit evaluation design choices (raters, protocol, and metrics).
  • Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

  • Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
  • Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

Related Papers

Papers are ranked by protocol overlap, extraction signal alignment, and semantic proximity.

No related papers found for this item yet.

Need human evaluators for your AI research? Scale annotation with expert AI Trainers.