In multi-objective learning (MOL), several possibly competing prediction tasks must be solved jointly by a single model. Achieving good trade-offs may require a model class $\mathcal{G}$ with larger capacity than what is necessary for solving the individual tasks. This, in turn, increases the statistical cost, as reflected in known MOL bounds that depend on the complexity of $\mathcal{G}$. We show that this cost is unavoidable for some losses, even in an idealized semi-supervised setting, where the learner has access to the Bayes-optimal solutions for the individual tasks as well as the marginal distributions over the covariates. On the other hand, for objectives defined with Bregman losses, we prove that the complexity of $\mathcal{G}$ may come into play only in terms of unlabeled data. Concretely, we establish sample complexity upper bounds, showing precisely when and how unlabeled data can significantly alleviate the need for labeled data. These rates are achieved by a simple, semi-supervised algorithm via pseudo-labeling.

Recent multi-task learning studies suggest that linear scalarization, when using well-chosen fixed task weights, can achieve comparable to or even better performance than complex multi-task optimization (MTO) methods. It remains unclear why certain weights yield optimal performance and how to determine these weights without relying on exhaustive hyperparameter search. This paper establishes a direct connection between linear scalarization and MTO methods, revealing through extensive experiments that well-performing scalarization weights exhibit specific trends in key MTO metrics, such as high gradient magnitude similarity. Building on this insight, we introduce AutoScale, a simple yet effective two-phase framework that uses these MTO metrics to guide weight selection for linear scalarization, without expensive weight search. AutoScale consistently shows superior performance with high efficiency across diverse datasets including a new large-scale benchmark.

Physics-informed machine learning (PIML) is crucial in modern traffic flow modeling because it combines the benefits of both physics-based and data-driven approaches. In conventional PIML, physical information is typically incorporated by constructing a hybrid loss function that combines data-driven loss and physics loss through linear scalarization. The goal is to find a trade-off between these two objectives to improve the accuracy of model predictions. However, from a mathematical perspective, linear scalarization is limited to identifying only the convex region of the Pareto front, as it treats data-driven and physics losses as separate objectives. Given that most PIML loss functions are non-convex, linear scalarization restricts the achievable trade-off solutions. Moreover, tuning the weighting coefficients for the two loss components can be both time-consuming and computationally challenging. To address these limitations, this paper introduces a paradigm shift in PIML by reformulating the training process as a multi-objective optimization problem, treating data-driven loss and physics loss independently. We apply several multi-gradient descent algorithms (MGDAs), including traditional multi-gradient descent (TMGD) and dual cone gradient descent (DCGD), to explore the Pareto front in this multi-objective setting. These methods are evaluated on both macroscopic and microscopic traffic flow models. In the macroscopic case, MGDAs achieved comparable performance to traditional linear scalarization methods. Notably, in the microscopic case, MGDAs significantly outperformed their scalarization-based counterparts, demonstrating the advantages of a multi-objective optimization approach in complex PIML scenarios.

Simultaneously addressing multiple objectives is becoming increasingly important in modern machine learning. At the same time, data is often high-dimensional and costly to label. For a single objective such as prediction risk, conventional regularization techniques are known to improve generalization when the data exhibits low-dimensional structure like sparsity. However, it is largely unexplored how to leverage this structure in the context of multi-objective learning (MOL) with multiple competing objectives. In this work, we discuss how the application of vanilla regularization approaches can fail, and propose a two-stage MOL framework that can successfully leverage low-dimensional structure. We demonstrate its effectiveness experimentally for multi-distribution learning and fairness-risk trade-offs.

We study fair multi-objective reinforcement learning in which an agent must learn a policy that simultaneously achieves high reward on multiple dimensions of a vector-valued reward. Motivated by the fair resource allocation literature, we model this as an expected welfare maximization problem, for some nonlinear fair welfare function of the vector of long-term cumulative rewards. One canonical example of such a function is the Nash Social Welfare, or geometric mean, the log transform of which is also known as the Proportional Fairness objective. We show that even approximately optimal optimization of the expected Nash Social Welfare is computationally intractable even in the tabular case. Nevertheless, we provide a novel adaptation of Q-learning that combines nonlinear scalarized learning updates and non-stationary action selection to learn effective policies for optimizing nonlinear welfare functions. We show that our algorithm is provably convergent, and we demonstrate experimentally that our approach outperforms techniques based on linear scalarization, mixtures of optimal linear scalarizations, or stationary action selection for the Nash Social Welfare Objective.

Linear scalarization, i.e., combining all loss functions by a weighted sum, has been the default choice in the literature of multi-task learning (MTL) since its inception. In recent years, there is a surge of interest in developing Specialized Multi-Task Optimizers (SMTOs) that treat MTL as a multi-objective optimization problem. However, it remains open whether there is a fundamental advantage of SMTOs over scalarization. In fact, heated debates exist in the community comparing these two types of algorithms, mostly from an empirical perspective. To approach the above question, in this paper, we revisit scalarization from a theoretical perspective. We focus on linear MTL models and study whether scalarization is capable of fully exploring the Pareto front. Our findings reveal that, in contrast to recent works that claimed empirical advantages of scalarization, scalarization is inherently incapable of full exploration, especially for those Pareto optimal solutions that strike the balanced trade-offs between multiple tasks. More concretely, when the model is under-parametrized, we reveal a multi-surface structure of the feasible region and identify necessary and sufficient conditions for full exploration. This leads to the conclusion that scalarization is in general incapable of tracing out the Pareto front. Our theoretical results partially answer the open questions in Xin et al. (2021), and provide a more intuitive explanation on why scalarization fails beyond non-convexity. We additionally perform experiments on a real-world dataset using both scalarization and state-of-the-art SMTOs. The experimental results not only corroborate our theoretical findings, but also unveil the potential of SMTOs in finding balanced solutions, which cannot be achieved by scalarization.