Consensus of Multi-agent Reinforcement Learning Systems: The Effect of Immediate Rewards
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper studies the consensus problem of a leaderless, homogeneous, multi-agent reinforcement learning (MARL) system using actor-critic algorithms with and without malicious agents. The goal of each agent is to reach the consensus position with the maximum cumulative reward. Although the reward function converges in both scenarios, in the absence of the malicious agent, the cumulative reward is higher than with the malicious agent present. We consider here various immediate reward functions. First, we study the immediate reward function based on Manhattan distance. In addition to proposing three different immediate reward functions based on Euclidean, $n$-norm, and Chebyshev distances, we have rigorously shown which method has a better performance based on a cumulative reward for each agent and the entire team of agents. Finally, we present a combination of various immediate reward functions that yields a higher cumulative reward for each agent and the team of agents. By increasing the agents’ cumulative reward using the combined immediate reward function, we have demonstrated that the cumulative team reward in the presence of a malicious agent is comparable with the cumulative team reward in the absence of the malicious agent. The claims have been proven theoretically, and the simulation confirms theoretical findings.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it