Multi-level Advantage Credit Assignment for Cooperative Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cooperative multi-agent reinforcement learning (MARL) aims to coordinate multiple agents to achieve a common goal. A key challenge in MARL is credit assignment, which involves assessing each agent's contribution to the shared reward. Given the diversity of tasks, agents may perform different types of coordination, with rewards attributed to diverse and often overlapping agent subsets. In this work, we formalize the credit assignment level as the number of agents cooperating to obtain a reward, and address scenarios with multiple coexisting levels. We introduce a multi-level advantage formulation that performs explicit counterfactual reasoning to infer credits across distinct levels. Our method, Multi-level Advantage Credit Assignment (MACA), captures agent contributions at multiple levels by integrating advantage functions that reason about individual, joint, and correlated actions. Utilizing an attention-based framework, MACA identifies correlated agent relationships and constructs multi-level advantages to guide policy learning. Comprehensive experiments on challenging Starcraft v1\&v2 tasks demonstrate MACA's superior performance, underscoring its efficacy in complex credit assignment scenarios.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".