MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3167724086 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2106.00136

Tesseract: Tensorised Actors for Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning

2021· article· en· W3167724086 on OpenAlexaff
Anuj Mahajan, Mikayel Samvelyan, Lei Mao, Viktor Makoviychuk, Animesh Garg, Jean Kossaifi, Shimon Whiteson, Yuke Zhu, Anima Anandkumar

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLattice Boltzmann Simulation Studies
Canadian institutionsVector InstituteUniversity of Toronto
FundersEuropean CommissionNvidia
KeywordsReinforcement learningComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceTensor (intrinsic definition)Bellman equationMathematical optimizationFunction (biology)Machine learningMathematicsPure mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reinforcement Learning in large action spaces is a challenging problem. Cooperative multi-agent reinforcement learning (MARL) exacerbates matters by imposing various constraints on communication and observability. In this work, we consider the fundamental hurdle affecting both value-based and policy-gradient approaches: an exponential blowup of the action space with the number of agents. For value-based methods, it poses challenges in accurately representing the optimal value function. For policy gradient methods, it makes training the critic difficult and exacerbates the problem of the lagging critic. We show that from a learning theory perspective, both problems can be addressed by accurately representing the associated action-value function with a low-complexity hypothesis class. This requires accurately modelling the agent interactions in a sample efficient way. To this end, we propose a novel tensorised formulation of the Bellman equation. This gives rise to our method Tesseract, which views the Q-function as a tensor whose modes correspond to the action spaces of different agents. Algorithms derived from Tesseract decompose the Q-tensor across agents and utilise low-rank tensor approximations to model agent interactions relevant to the task. We provide PAC analysis for Tesseract-based algorithms and highlight their relevance to the class of rich observation MDPs. Empirical results in different domains confirm Tesseract's gains in sample efficiency predicted by the theory.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.103
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.108 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicLattice Boltzmann Simulation StudiesFrench-language works237,207