摘要
arXiv:2606.03904v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Multi-objective optimization (MOO) underlies many machine learning problems, yet MOO solvers across the loss-balancing, gradient-balancing, and Pareto-based families almost universally hand their reconciled directions to Adam~\cite{kingma2015adam}. We show this coupling introduces two systematic gaps between the solver's intent and the optimizer's execution. The first is a \emph{weighting mismatch}: Adam's second-moment denominator entangles the time-varying preference vector with gradient statistics, marginalizing the preference into a history average and collapsing distinct Pareto trade-offs toward a near-uniform mixture. The second is a \emph{geometric mismatch}: Adam's adaptive metric distorts the Euclidean geometry MOO solvers assume, turning aligned objectives into apparent conflicts.