Learning to Transfer Role Assignment Across Team Sizes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Multi-agent reinforcement learning holds the key for solving complex tasks that demand coordination of learning agents. However, strong coordination often leads to expensive exploration over the exponentially large state-action space. A powerful approach is to decompose team works into roles, which are ideally assigned to agents with the relevant skills. Training agents to adaptively choose and play emerging roles in team thus allows the team to scale to complex tasks and quickly adapt to changing environments. These promises, however, have not been fully realized by current role-based multi-agent reinforcement learning methods as they assume either a pre-defined role structure or a fixed team size. We propose a framework to learn role assignment and transfer across team sizes. In particular, we train a role assignment network for small teams by demonstration and transfer the network to larger teams, which continue to learn through interaction with the environment. We demonstrate that re-using the role-based credit assignment structure can foster the learning process of larger reinforcement learning teams to achieve tasks requiring different roles. Our proposal outperforms competing techniques in enriched role-enforcing Prey-Predator games and in new scenarios in the StarCraft II Micro-Management benchmark.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.008 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".