Pareto-Conditioned Diffusion Models for Offline Multi-Objective Optimization
Jatan Shrestha, Santeri Heiskanen, Kari Hepola, Severi Rissanen, Pekka J\"a\"askel\"ainen, Joni Pajarinen

TL;DR
This paper introduces Pareto-Conditioned Diffusion (PCD), a new offline multi-objective optimization framework that uses conditional sampling to effectively explore trade-offs and outperform existing methods.
Contribution
The paper presents PCD, a novel diffusion-based approach that conditions on desired trade-offs and employs reweighting and reference directions to improve offline MOO.
Findings
PCD achieves state-of-the-art performance on offline MOO benchmarks.
PCD demonstrates greater consistency across diverse tasks.
PCD effectively explores the Pareto front beyond training data.
Abstract
Multi-objective optimization (MOO) arises in many real-world applications where trade-offs between competing objectives must be carefully balanced. In the offline setting, where only a static dataset is available, the main challenge is generalizing beyond observed data. We introduce Pareto-Conditioned Diffusion (PCD), a novel framework that formulates offline MOO as a conditional sampling problem. By conditioning directly on desired trade-offs, PCD avoids the need for explicit surrogate models. To effectively explore the Pareto front, PCD employs a reweighting strategy that focuses on high-performing samples and a reference-direction mechanism to guide sampling towards novel, promising regions beyond the training data. Experiments on standard offline MOO benchmarks show that PCD achieves highly competitive performance and, importantly, demonstrates greater consistency across diverse…
Peer Reviews
Decision·ICLR 2026 Oral
1. PCD eliminates the need for explicit surrogate models or scalarization schemes (common in existing methods like MOBO or ParetoFlow), simplifying the optimization pipeline and reducing risks of exploiting surrogate inaccuracies. 2. The multi-objective reweighting strategy (Equation 6) balances dense bins and high-performance samples, while the reference-direction mechanism (inspired by NSGA-III) ensures diverse, high-quality conditioning points. This design is sound and well-motivated. 3. PCD
1. PCD underperforms on some challenging tasks, including MORL (high-dimensional) and MONAS (purely categorical). I expect more discussion and guidance for future research. For example, are there targeted modifications (e.g., dimensionality reduction, specialized denoiser architectures) that might address this? 2. The paper explicitly excludes combinatorial tasks (citing needs for specialized denoising) but provides no technical discussion of how PCD could be extended to this subset of MOO. 3. T
1. Framing offline MOO as conditional sampling is elegant: a single model generates candidate sets conditioned on desired trade‑offs, sidestepping surrogate‑then‑optimizer pipelines. 2. Method components are well‑motivated: - The reweighting combines dominance‑based quality with bin density, to emphasize promising regions without discarding too much signal - The reference‑direction procedure provides diverse, high‑quality conditioning targets for sampling 3. The paper evaluates across different
1. Computation of dominance numbers. Computing the dominance number o(x) for reweighting is quadratic in dataset size if done naively (Eq. 5). The paper would benefit from complexity notes or empirically evaluating the time cost for sampling with the proposed PCD method. 2. Benchmarks are mostly m≤3 objectives. It’s unclear how the reference‑direction generation and conditioning scale when m grows (e.g., direction coverage, sampling stability, and the number of conditions L required). A small sy
- This paper is well-written and easy to follow. - The idea of extending forward-surrogate-free (i.e., $\boldsymbol{y} \to \boldsymbol{x}$ instead of $\boldsymbol{x} \to \boldsymbol{y}$) methods to offline MOO is novel. It is still unknown that which of the modelings is better, and the discussion in this paper brings new insights into this field. - Compared to recent generative-based methods [2-3], PCD does not rely on forward surrogate or classifier, which may introduce compounding error in bot
- The multi-objective reweighing scheme is somehow heuristic, mainly regarding the choice of dominance number as ranking metric. - From my perspective, the dominance number is just a quantification of the Pareto dominance. However, in MOO, there are still other metrics to further comprehensively examine the goodness of the solutions, e.g., the Pareto dominance together with crowding distance from NSGA-II [4] (also used in [3]) and the scalarization mechanism from MOEA/D [5]. I suggest compa
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsAdvanced Multi-Objective Optimization Algorithms · Model Reduction and Neural Networks · Risk and Portfolio Optimization
