Coach-Player Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning for Dynamic Team Composition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In real-world multi-agent systems, agents with different capabilities may join or leave without altering the team's overarching goals. Coordinating teams with such dynamic composition is challenging: the optimal team strategy varies with the composition. We propose COPA, a coach-player framework to tackle this problem. We assume the coach has a global view of the environment and coordinates the players, who only have partial views, by distributing individual strategies. Specifically, we 1) adopt the attention mechanism for both the coach and the players; 2) propose a variational objective to regularize learning; and 3) design an adaptive communication method to let the coach decide when to communicate with the players. We validate our methods on a resource collection task, a rescue game, and the StarCraft micromanagement tasks. We demonstrate zero-shot generalization to new team compositions. Our method achieves comparable or better performance than the setting where all players have a full view of the environment. Moreover, we see that the performance remains high even when the coach communicates as little as 13% of the time using the adaptive communication strategy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".