PORTAL: Automatic Curricula Generation for Multiagent Reinforcement Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite many breakthroughs in recent years, it is still hard for MultiAgent Reinforcement Learning (MARL) algorithms to directly solve complex tasks in MultiAgent Systems (MASs) from scratch. In this work, we study how to use Automatic Curriculum Learning (ACL) to reduce the number of environmental interactions required to learn a good policy. In order to solve a difficult task, ACL methods automatically select a sequence of tasks (i.e., curricula). The idea is to obtain maximum learning progress towards the final task by continuously learning on tasks that match the current capabilities of the learners. The key question is how to measure the learning progress of the learner for better curriculum selection. We propose a novel ACL framework, PrOgRessive mulTiagent Automatic curricuLum (PORTAL), for MASs. PORTAL selects curricula according to two critera: 1) How difficult is a task, relative to the learners’ current abilities? 2) How similar is a task, relative to the final task? By learning a shared feature space between tasks, PORTAL is able to characterize different tasks based on the distribution of features and select those that are similar to the final task. Also, the shared feature space can effectively facilitate the policy transfer between curricula. Experimental results show that PORTAL can train agents to master extremely hard cooperative tasks, which can not be achieved with previous state-of-the-art MARL algorithms.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 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".