Asynchronous, Option-Based Multi-Agent Policy Gradient: A Conditional Reasoning Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cooperative multi-agent problems often require coordination between agents, which can be achieved through a centralized policy that considers the global state. Multi-agent policy gradient (MAPG) methods are commonly used to learn such policies, but they are often limited to problems with low-level action spaces. In complex problems with large state and action spaces, it is advantageous to extend MAPG methods to use higher-level actions, also known as options, to improve the policy search efficiency. However, multi-robot option executions are often asynchronous, that is, agents may select and complete their options at different time steps. This makes it difficult for MAPG methods to derive a centralized policy and evaluate its gradient, as centralized policy always select new options at the same time. In this work, we propose a novel, conditional reasoning approach to address this problem and demonstrate its effectiveness on representative option-based multi-agent cooperative tasks through empirical validation. Find code and videos at: https://sites.google.com/view/mahrlsupp/
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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.
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".