A Stochastic Differential Equation Framework for Multi-Objective LLM Interactions: Dynamical Systems Analysis with Code Generation Applications

Basic Information

• Paper ID: 2510.10739
• Title: A Stochastic Differential Equation Framework for Multi-Objective LLM Interactions: Dynamical Systems Analysis with Code Generation Applications
• Authors: Shivani Shukla (University of San Francisco), Himanshu Joshi (Vector Institute for Artificial Intelligence, Canada)
• Classification: cs.LG cs.AI cs.SE
• Publication Date/Venue: Peer Reviewed and Accepted to 39th Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS 2025) DynaFront Workshop
• Paper Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.10739

Abstract

This paper proposes a general stochastic differential equation (SDE) framework for modeling multi-objective optimization dynamics in iterative large language model (LLM) interactions. The framework captures the inherent stochasticity of LLM responses through explicit diffusion terms and reveals systematic interference patterns between competing objectives via an interference matrix formulation. The authors validate the theoretical framework using iterative code generation as a proof-of-concept application, analyzing safety, efficiency, and functionality objectives across 400 sessions. Results demonstrate strategy-dependent convergence behaviors with convergence rates ranging from 0.33 to 1.29, and the balanced approach achieves predictive accuracy of R² = 0.74.

Research Background and Motivation

Problem Definition

As LLMs are increasingly deployed in complex decision-making processes ranging from content generation to reasoning tasks, understanding how competing objectives evolve through continuous interactions is critical for algorithm design and system optimization. Existing multi-objective LLM interactions lack a systematic theoretical foundation to analyze convergence properties, stability conditions, and interference patterns between objectives.

Significance

1. Theoretical Foundation Need: Multi-objective LLM interactions require rigorous mathematical frameworks to understand and predict system behavior
2. Practical Application Value: Multi-objective trade-offs exist in code generation, content optimization, reasoning enhancement, and other domains
3. System Optimization: Principled approaches are needed to design interaction strategies that achieve desired convergence characteristics

Limitations of Existing Methods

1. Traditional Multi-Objective Optimization: Assumes deterministic objective functions and focuses on Pareto optimal solutions, unable to handle the inherent stochasticity of LLM responses
2. Empirical Approaches: Lack theoretical rigor to understand convergence properties and interference patterns
3. Static Analysis: Ignores the dynamic evolution of objectives through interactions

Core Contributions

1. Theoretical Framework: Proposes a general SDE-based framework for modeling the dynamical systems of multi-objective LLM interactions
2. Interference Matrix Concept: Introduces an interference matrix to quantify systematic coupling and trade-off relationships between objectives
3. Dynamical Analysis: Reveals convergence behavior patterns under different strategies through eigenvalue analysis
4. Empirical Validation: Validates framework effectiveness on code generation tasks, analyzing multi-objective dynamics across 400 sessions

Methodology Details

Task Definition

Consider an iterative LLM system optimizing n competing objectives. Let x(t) ∈ ℝⁿ denote the objective vector at the t-th iteration. The goal is to analyze and predict the evolution dynamics of multiple objectives through continuous interactions.

Model Architecture

1. Stochastic Differential Equation Framework

Continuous-time evolution is modeled as:

dx = μ(x,π)dt + σ(x,π)dW

where:

• μ(x,π): ℝⁿ×Π → ℝⁿ is the drift vector, encoding systematic objective changes under strategy π
• σ(x,π): ℝⁿ×Π → ℝⁿˣⁿ captures LLM response variability
• W is an n-dimensional Brownian motion

2. Discretization Implementation

Based on Euler-Maruyama approximation theory, discrete LLM interactions are modeled as:

x(t+1) = x(t) + μ(x(t))Δt + σ√(Δt)ε(t)

where ε(t) ~ N(0,I) represents normalized LLM response variability, and Δt = 1 represents the iteration interval.

3. Interference Matrix

Define the interference matrix I ∈ ℝⁿˣⁿ, where off-diagonal elements quantify cross-objective correlations:

I_ij = {
  Corr(Δx_i^(t), Δx_j^(t))  if i ≠ j
  0                          if i = j
}

Negative off-diagonal elements indicate systematic trade-offs between objectives.

4. Eigenvalue Analysis

For linearized systems dx = Axdt + ΣdW, the eigenvalue spectrum of matrix A determines convergence behavior:

• Exponential Convergence: Real eigenvalues λᵢ < 0 produce monotonic convergence
• Oscillatory Dynamics: Complex eigenvalue pairs λ = α ± iβ produce damped oscillations
• Boundary Attraction: Eigenvalues near zero indicate slow convergence toward constraint boundaries

Technical Innovations

1. Stochasticity Modeling: First application of SDE theory to multi-objective LLM interactions, explicitly modeling response stochasticity
2. Interference Matrix: Novel introduction of the interference matrix concept to systematically quantify objective coupling relationships
3. Dynamics Classification: Establishes a theoretical classification system for convergence behaviors based on eigenvalue analysis
4. Strategy Design: Provides principled methods for designing interaction strategies based on dynamical properties

Experimental Setup

Dataset

• Task: Iterative code generation involving three competing objectives: safety, efficiency, and functionality
• Scale: 400 interactive sessions
• Objective Vector: x = s, e, fᵀ, with each objective scored 0-10

Evaluation Metrics

1. Convergence Rate: ρ = -Re(λₘₐₓ), based on the maximum real part eigenvalue of the drift matrix
2. Predictive Accuracy: R² coefficient of determination
3. Pareto Efficiency: Quantifies strategy optimality
4. Interference Strength: Quantified through interference matrix elements

Comparison Methods

Four interaction strategies:

1. Efficiency-Focused (EF): μₑf(x) = 0, 0.16xₑ, 0ᵀ + noise
2. Safety-Focused (SF): μₛf(x) = 0.08xₛ, -0.75xₑ, 0ᵀ + noise
3. Functionality-Focused (FF): μff(x) = -0.82xₛ, -0.88xₑ, 0.9xfᵀ + noise
4. Adaptive Integration (AI): μₐᵢ(x) = 0.08xₛ, 0.08xₑ, 0.08xfᵀ + noise

Implementation Details

• Objective Scoring: Via pattern matching, AST parsing, and heuristic structural analysis
• Safety: Detection of unsafe constructs (eval, exec, SQL injection, etc.)
• Efficiency: Static complexity features based on AST
• Functionality: Assessment of structural richness (functions, classes, imports, etc.)

Experimental Results

Main Results

Convergence Rate Analysis

• EF: ρ = 0.33 ± 0.08 (Stable: |λdiscrete| = 0.67)
• SF: ρ = 1.08 ± 0.15 (Oscillatory behavior, complex eigenvalues)
• FF: ρ = 1.29 ± 0.21 (Boundary convergence)
• AI: ρ = 0.15 ± 0.05 (Most stable, |λdiscrete| = 0.85)

Predictive Accuracy Hierarchy

1. AI: R² = 0.74 (Highest predictability)
2. SF: R² = 0.72
3. EF: R² = 0.58
4. FF: R² = 0.50

This ordering directly correlates with eigenvalue stability, validating the stability-predictability relationship.

Interference Matrix Verification

Measured interference matrix:

I_code = [0    0    -0.09]
         [0    0    -0.17]
         [-0.09 -0.17  0 ]

Reveals functionality as the primary interference source, consistent with theoretical predictions.

Strategy-Dependent Objective Space Reachability

• EF: Converges to 5.25, 4.65, 7.26 (moderate balanced performance)
• SF: Oscillates toward 5.75, 3.9, 8.20 (safety-prioritized)
• FF: Boundary convergence to 0.0, 2.1, 8.75 (extreme functionality focus)
• AI: Maintains balanced trajectory 4.0, 4.2, 8.20 (balanced development)

Pareto Efficiency Analysis

• Balanced Strategies (EF, SF, AI): Maintain high Pareto efficiency
• Aggressive Strategy (FF): Only 50% Pareto efficiency, validating theoretical predictions that boundary convergence sacrifices optimality

Related Work

Stochastic Approximation Theory

• Classical Foundations: Robbins and Monro's stochastic approximation theory
• Modern Extensions: Research in non-convex settings by Borkar and Dieuleveut et al.
• This Paper's Contribution: Extension to multi-objective LLM interactions, introducing the interference matrix concept

Multi-Objective Optimization

• Traditional Methods: Deb et al.'s NSGA-II, evolutionary algorithms by Coello et al.
• LLM Applications: Neural architecture search by Zhang et al., multi-objective alignment with human feedback by Liu et al.
• This Paper's Innovation: First systematic treatment of LLM response stochasticity and dynamic objective evolution

LLM Optimization Research

• Evolutionary Methods: LEO (Language-Model-Based Evolutionary Optimizer) by Ma et al.
• Cascaded Systems: Performance-cost-privacy trade-off studies by Liu et al.
• Human-Machine Collaboration: Software development research by Vaithilingam et al. and Barke et al.

Conclusions and Discussion

Main Conclusions

1. Theoretical Validity: SDE framework successfully predicts and explains multi-objective LLM behavior
2. Strategy Differentiation: Different strategies exhibit predictable convergence patterns and objective space reachability
3. Interference Patterns: Functionality objectives dominate system interference, validating theoretical predictions
4. Design Guidance: Framework provides mathematical foundations for principled interaction strategy design

Limitations

1. Task Specificity: Based on specific coding tasks; generalization requires further verification
2. Model Dependency: Results based on GPT-4; other LLM architectures may differ
3. Measurement Issues: Complete safety elimination in FF strategy may contain measurement artifacts
4. Dimensional Constraints: Current validation limited to three-dimensional objective space

Future Directions

1. Theoretical Extensions: Eigenvalue degeneracy analysis for high-dimensional objective spaces (n>3)
2. Nonlinear Dynamics: Capture saddle points and chaotic attractors
3. Stochastic Control: Optimal strategy adaptation through control theory
4. Real-Time Applications: Real-time strategy switching based on eigenvalue drift monitoring

In-Depth Evaluation

Strengths

1. Theoretical Innovation: First systematic application of dynamical systems theory to multi-objective LLM interactions
2. Mathematical Rigor: Establishes a complete SDE theoretical framework including convergence and stability analysis
3. Empirical Sufficiency: Large-scale validation across 400 sessions with statistically convincing results
4. Practical Value: Provides principled strategy design methods with broad application prospects
5. Clear Writing: Clear exposition of theoretical derivations and experimental design with rigorous logic

Weaknesses

1. Application Limitations: Validation only on code generation tasks; applicability to other domains remains to be established
2. Linear Assumptions: Local linearization may fail to capture complex nonlinear dynamics
3. Scoring Subjectivity: Objective scoring functions based on heuristic methods may introduce bias
4. Strategy Simplification: Experimental strategies are relatively simple; real applications may be more complex
5. Computational Complexity: Insufficient analysis of computational overhead and scalability of the framework

Impact

1. Academic Contribution: Establishes a new theoretical paradigm for multi-objective LLM research
2. Practical Value: Provides mathematical tools and design principles for LLM system design
3. Cross-Disciplinary: Connects dynamical systems theory with AI system optimization
4. Reproducibility: Provides detailed implementation details and mathematical formulations

Applicable Scenarios

1. Content Generation: Balancing creativity, accuracy, and engagement in content systems
2. Reasoning Systems: Optimizing speed, completeness, and interpretability in decision support
3. Human-Machine Collaboration: Analyzing collaboration dynamics of autonomy, user control, and task efficiency
4. Safety-Critical Applications: Balancing helpfulness, harmlessness, and honesty in AI alignment

References

Key references include:

• Robbins, H. & Monro, S. (1951). A stochastic approximation method.
• Borkar, V.S. (2009). Stochastic approximation: a dynamical systems viewpoint.
• Deb, K. et al. (2002). A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II.
• Liu, Z. et al. (2024). LLM cascade with multi-objective optimal consideration.

Overall Assessment: This is a high-quality paper with strong theoretical innovation and rigorous experimental design. The authors successfully introduce dynamical systems theory into multi-objective LLM interaction analysis, establishing a rigorous mathematical framework validated through code generation tasks. Despite some limitations, this work provides an important theoretical foundation and practical tools for understanding and optimizing multi-objective LLM systems, with significant academic value and application potential.