Robustness and sample complexity of model-based MARL for general-sum Markov games
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Multi-agent reinforcement learning (MARL) is often modeled using the framework of Markov games (also called stochastic games or dynamic games). Most of the existing literature on MARL concentrates on zero-sum Markov games but is not applicable to general-sum Markov games. It is known that the best-response dynamics in general-sum Markov games are not a contraction. Therefore, different equilibria in general-sum Markov games can have different values. Moreover, the Q-function is not sufficient to completely characterize the equilibrium. Given these challenges, model based learning is an attractive approach for MARL in general-sum Markov games. In this paper, we investigate the fundamental question of \emph{sample complexity} for model-based MARL algorithms in general-sum Markov games. We show two results. We first use Hoeffding inequality based bounds to show that $\tilde{\mathcal{O}}( (1-γ)^{-4} α^{-2})$ samples per state-action pair are sufficient to obtain a $α$-approximate Markov perfect equilibrium with high probability, where $γ$ is the discount factor, and the $\tilde{\mathcal{O}}(\cdot)$ notation hides logarithmic terms. We then use Bernstein inequality based bounds to show that $\tilde{\mathcal{O}}( (1-γ)^{-1} α^{-2} )$ samples are sufficient. To obtain these results, we study the robustness of Markov perfect equilibrium to model approximations. We show that the Markov perfect equilibrium of an approximate (or perturbed) game is always an approximate Markov perfect equilibrium of the original game and provide explicit bounds on the approximation error. We illustrate the results via a numerical example.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".