Conditionally Optimistic Exploration for Cooperative Deep Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Efficient exploration is critical in cooperative deep Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning (MARL). In this work, we propose an exploration method that effectively encourages cooperative exploration based on the idea of sequential action-computation scheme. The high-level intuition is that to perform optimism-based exploration, agents would explore cooperative strategies if each agent's optimism estimate captures a structured dependency relationship with other agents. Assuming agents compute actions following a sequential order at \textit{each environment timestep}, we provide a perspective to view MARL as tree search iterations by considering agents as nodes at different depths of the search tree. Inspired by the theoretically justified tree search algorithm UCT (Upper Confidence bounds applied to Trees), we develop a method called Conditionally Optimistic Exploration (COE). COE augments each agent's state-action value estimate with an action-conditioned optimistic bonus derived from the visitation count of the global state and joint actions of preceding agents. COE is performed during training and disabled at deployment, making it compatible with any value decomposition method for centralized training with decentralized execution. Experiments across various cooperative MARL benchmarks show that COE outperforms current state-of-the-art exploration methods on hard-exploration tasks.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".