# MINT: Min-Selection Preference Distillation for Balanced Multi-Objective Alignment

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.14828 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.14828/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in LLM preference optimization methods, one of 10 directions in LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation.
- Builds on 12 of its 15 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 14 Aug 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation / [LLM preference optimization methods](https://mlsanity.com/alignment/llm-preference-optimization-methods/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 12 of 12)

- [Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.02155/) (2022)
- [Proximal Policy Optimization Algorithms](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1707.06347/) (2017)
- [Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Model](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.18290/) (2023)
- [Deep reinforcement learning from human preferences](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.03741/) (2017)
- [A General Theoretical Paradigm to Understand Learning from Human Preferences](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.12036/) (2023)
- [RAFT: Reward rAnked FineTuning for Generative Foundation Model Alignment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.06767/) (2023)
- [ORPO: Monolithic Preference Optimization without Reference Model](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.07691/) (2024)
- [Statistical Rejection Sampling Improves Preference Optimization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.06657/) (2023)
- [Towards Emotional Support Dialog Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2106.01144/) (2021)
- [Rewarded soups: towards Pareto-optimal alignment by interpolating weights fine-tuned on diverse rewards](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.04488/) (2023)
- [Rewards-in-Context: Multi-objective Alignment of Foundation Models with Dynamic Preference Adjustment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.10207/) (2024)
- [Decoupling Strategy and Generation in Negotiation Dialogues](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1808.09637/) (2018)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Aligning a language agent to several objectives at once is a persistent failure mode of preference-based training: when objectives are combined additively, optimization collapses onto whichever is cheapest to improve and sacrifices the rest, so a support agent learns to sound warm while giving no real help. The root issue is that an additive reward has no notion of balance. We introduce Mint (MIN-selection preference disTillation), a one-line change to preference distillation: rather than ranking sampled candidates by a weighted sum of rewards, we rank them by their weakest objective, distilling the best-balanced candidate over the most lopsided one with an unchanged DPO objective. This is the p -> negative infinity limit of a generalized-mean family spanning additive to worst-case selection. Across cooperative emotional support and adversarial negotiation, min-selection lifts both objectives while sharply cutting their imbalance; on emotional support it raises the weaker axis from 0.37 to 0.64 (p < 10^-40), surpassing human experts and persisting across full multi-turn rollouts. A turn-by-turn analysis yields our central finding: min-selection corrects imbalance in proportion to how imbalanced the reference policy is, and its benefit endures over an interaction precisely as long as that imbalance does.