Environmental-Impact-Based Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To promote cooperation and strengthen the individual impact on the collective outcome in social dilemmas, we propose the Environmental-impact Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning (EMuReL) method where each agent estimates the “environmental impact” of every other agent, that is, the difference in the current environment state compared to the hypothetical environment in the absence of that other agent. Inspired by the inequity aversion model, the agent then compares its own reward with that of its fellows multiplied by their environmental impacts. If its reward exceeds the scaled reward of one of its fellows, the agent takes “social responsibility” toward that fellow by reducing its own reward. Therefore, the less influential an agent is in reaching the current state, the more social responsibility is taken by other agents. Experiments in the Cleanup (resp. Harvest) test environment demonstrated that agents trained based on EMuReL learned to cooperate more effectively and obtained 54% (39%) and 20% (44%) more total rewards while preserving the same cooperation levels compared to when they were trained based on the two state-of-the-art reward reshaping methods: inequity aversion and social influence.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".