Robust Event-Triggered Integrated Communication and Control with Graph Information Bottleneck Optimization

Rongpeng Li; Xiaoxue Yu; Zhifeng Zhao; Ziqiong Wang

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 23 references

Robust Event-Triggered Integrated Communication and Control with Graph Information Bottleneck Optimization

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that a consensus-driven, event-based graph information bottleneck method lets multi-agent reinforcement learning reach consensus with fewer, more informative messages.

desk verdict A plausible engineering integration of GIB and event-triggered communication for MARL, but the printed KL derivation has a sign error and the experiments lack the statistical grounding to support the central claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.09846 v2 pith:Y5RHKRQS submitted 2025-02-14 cs.MA

Ziqiong Wang , Xiaoxue Yu , Rongpeng Li , Zhifeng Zhao This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.MA

keywords multi-agentreinforcementlearningevent-triggeredcommunicationgraphinformationbottleneckconsensusinferenceandcontrolco-designformationpartialobservability

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper aims to show that in multi-agent reinforcement learning with partial observability, agents can reach a shared consensus with far less communication than standard protocols require. It proposes CDE-GIB, which adds two mechanisms to the consensus-based ConsMAC architecture: a graph information bottleneck (GIB) regularizer that jointly compresses the communication graph and the message features, and a variable-threshold event-triggering module that decides, from both history and current observations, whether a message is worth sending. The authors argue that these modules together extract concise, informative messages and suppress redundant exchanges, and they report that the combined method lowers communication volume, reduces consensus error, and raises formation-control reward relative to ConsMAC, TarMAC, and MASIA.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are the GIB upper bound and the VT-ETM gate. The GIB bound, derived in Theorem 1, is $L_{GIB} \leq E[D_{KL}(p(o_g)\|p(F_{\psi_E}(h)))] + \eta E[D_{KL}(p(h|E_{mi})\|q_h(h))]$, which under a Gaussian assumption on $o_g$, $F_{\psi_E}(h)$, and $h$ becomes the closed-form loss in Eq. 19 using Lemma 2's KL formula. The VT-ETM gate computes an importance score $\kappa(F_{\psi_T}(o_i^{(t)}, o_i^{(\tilde{t}_i)}), \hat{e}^{(t-1)})$ and triggers communication only when this score exceeds the exponential threshold $G_{threshold}=c\zeta^t$; otherwise the agent's outgoing message is replaced by a zero vector. Together they convert raw consensus updates into a sparse, compressed message stream.

What would settle it

Run the same formation-control benchmark with observations drawn from a multimodal Gaussian mixture while keeping every other component fixed; if the closed-form GIB loss in Eq. 19 degrades relative to a version that estimates the KL terms with a Monte Carlo sample-based estimator, the Gaussianity assumption in Eq. 18 is the load-bearing simplification.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Integrating a graph information bottleneck regularizer and a variable-threshold event-triggering mechanism into the consensus-oriented multi-agent communication framework ConsMAC yields more concise message representations and lower communication volume while preserving or improving task performance. The GIB term jointly compresses the communication graph and information flow through a single upper bound, avoiding the inner-loop complexity of separate compression; the event-triggering term evaluates information importance from both historical and current observations against a time-decaying threshold and suppresses low-importance messages. The paper reports that CDE-GIB achieves lower consensus error, lower communication volume, and higher formation-control reward than ConsMAC, TarMAC, and MASIA.

Load-bearing premise

The closed-form GIB loss (Eq. 19) assumes that, for each training batch, the global observation, the estimated global-state embedding, and the consensus latent are Gaussian with diagonal covariance, and that the variational posterior can be fixed as a standard normal.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Integration of VT-ETM reduces the volume of transmitted messages, with the reduction persisting across different maximum observation ranges (Table III).
The GIB regularizer roughly halves the consensus-estimation loss relative to the same architecture without it (Table IV).
CDE-GIB attains higher formation-control reward than ConsMAC, TarMAC, and MASIA in the multi-agent particle environment (Fig. 3).
The VT-ETM module can be added to other consensus algorithms and improves their reward as well, indicating plugin-like adaptability (Fig. 4).
Joint GIB optimization avoids the high computational cost of inner-loop separate compression of graph and features, making the method more scalable in principle.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The time-decreasing threshold $c\zeta^t$ is a general mechanism for counteracting stale-update accumulation; the same principle could be ported to other event-triggered MARL protocols that currently use fixed thresholds.
Because the GIB regularizer only needs batch-level Gaussian statistics, it could in principle be attached to any consensus-oriented communicator that produces a latent vector, not only ConsMAC, suggesting a testable plug-in extension.
The roughly two-fold reduction in consensus error reported in Table IV hints that the GIB term is acting as a representation-learning objective that aligns the latent with the global observation distribution, a hypothesis a reader could isolate by ablating the CE loss while keeping GIB.
Replacing un-triggered messages with zero vectors, rather than with stale memorized messages, implies a design principle: in bandwidth-limited multi-agent systems, silence should signal 'no new information' rather than repeat old data.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The genuinely new thing here is combining a graph information bottleneck regularizer with a variable-threshold event trigger inside a consensus-oriented MARL framework. That combination is not in MAGI or ETCNet, which handle the two ideas separately. The ablation tables do show the GIB and ETM modules each move the reported metrics in the intended direction, and the idea of replacing stale memorized messages with zeros under an event trigger is a sensible, testable design choice. The writing is clear about what the framework adds over ConsMAC.

That said, the soft spots are real and in the load-bearing parts. The stress-test note is correct: Eq. (17) has the KL log-ratio sign inverted, and this propagates into Eq. (19). The q_h = N(0,I) constants are also off. So the printed objective is not the KL divergence of Lemma 2, and unless the implementation silently uses a different formula, the GIB loss does not minimize the stated bound. That is not a cosmetic typo; it is the paper's central mechanism. The proof of Theorem 1 also leans on an unproven positivity condition after inequality (b), and there is a notation mismatch between Eq. (12) and the proof. These need to be fixed or the claims need to be softened.

The empirical side has a different but addressable weakness: no error bars or seeds, no comparison against MAGI or ETCNet (the closest prior methods), and no code. The claims about beating state-of-the-art are therefore not yet supported, even though the direction of the ablations is consistent with the authors' story.

On the positive side, the paper is honest about what it builds on, the framework is clearly specified, and the proposed integration is a legitimate research direction. This is not a paper with a fabricated result or a circular argument; it is an under-validated algorithmic paper with a fixable derivation error.

Who is this for? Researchers working on communication-efficient MARL who want a concrete recipe for combining GIB-style compression with event-triggered transmission. They will get a useful baseline idea even if the current derivation needs correction.

I would send this to peer review, not desk reject it, but only with the expectation that the authors must correct the KL derivation, add error bars and seeds, and benchmark against MAGI and ETCNet. As printed, I would not cite Eq. (19) as a valid bound.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes CDE-GIB, a multi-agent reinforcement learning framework that integrates a graph information bottleneck (GIB) regularizer with a variable-threshold event-triggering mechanism (VT-ETM) for consensus-driven communication and control. The authors derive an upper bound on the GIB objective (Theorem 1), approximate it using Gaussian assumptions (Assumption 2, Corollary 1), and train with a combined loss (Eq. (15)). Experiments on a formation-control task in the multi-agent particle environment compare CDE-GIB against ConsMAC, TarMAC, and MASIA, reporting lower communication volume and consensus error with VT-ETM and GIB ablations, and higher reward in learning curves.

Significance. If the derivation is corrected, the contribution is meaningful: it provides a principled approach for jointly compressing the communication graph and message features for consensus inference, and an event-triggering mechanism that uses both historical and current information with a time-decaying threshold. The paper includes component-wise ablations (Tables III–IV) and comparisons to multiple baselines (Figs. 3–4), which are useful and show consistent improvements. However, the theoretical derivation currently contains sign errors, an unproven positivity condition, and an unvalidated Gaussian assumption, so the significance cannot be fully assessed until these points are addressed.

major comments (4)

[III-B, Eq. (17) and Eq. (19)] The KL divergence formula printed in Eq. (17) is not correct for diagonal Gaussians: for f = N(μm, Σm) and g = N(μl, Σl), the log-ratio term is log(σ_l/σ_m), while Eq. (17) has log(σ_m/σ_l). This inverted sign carries into Eq. (19), where the second term against q_h = N(0, I) also shows +log σ_h and an overall −1 instead of the correct Σ_k[−log σ_h + (σ_h^2 + μ_h^2)/2 − 1/2]. Therefore the printed objective (19) does not equal the KL divergence of Lemma 2, and minimizing it does not minimize the bound in Theorem 1 as claimed. Please correct Eqs. (17) and (19), and clarify whether the implementation used the corrected formula; if so, update the displayed equations to match the experiments.
[III-B, Theorem 1 proof] The inequality (b) in Eq. (13) is not justified: it relies on the condition 1 − E_{p(o_g)p(h)}[p(FψE(h))/p(o_g)] > 0, which is asserted without proof and is not generally true for continuous densities (where E[1/p(o_g)] may diverge). Without a valid bound for this expectation, the step from (a) to (b) does not follow, and the upper bound in Eq. (12) is not established. Please either prove this condition under the model assumptions or replace the bound with one that does not require it.
[III-B, Assumption 2 and Corollary 1] The closed-form GIB loss (19) relies on Assumption 2 that o_g, FψE(h), and h are Gaussian over training batches, and on the variational prior q_h = N(0, I). No evidence is provided that these Gaussian approximations hold for the learned representations in the formation-control experiments. Since the KL terms are computed under this assumption, the regularizer is only justified if the assumption is empirically supported or the method is shown to be insensitive to it. Please add validation (e.g., normality diagnostics on batch statistics) or discuss the consequences of misspecification.
[IV-B, Table IV] The ablation comparing consensus error with and without GIB in Table IV is intended to validate the GIB module, but it reports results under the printed loss (19). Given the sign error in Eq. (19), this ablation does not currently isolate the claimed GIB mechanism. After correcting the regularizer, please rerun the ablation and report the updated table and learning curves.

minor comments (4)

[III-A, Eq. (9)] The zero-vector label o(t)_k is not defined; please specify its dimensionality so that the MSE loss in Eq. (9) is well-formed.
[III-B, Theorem 1] The theorem statement in Eq. (12) writes DKL(p(o_g) || p(h)), whereas the proof and Eq. (19) use p(FψE(h)); please align this notation throughout.
[Algorithm 1, line 12] The value Vϕ(s(t)) is computed after the episode loop; it appears this should be Vϕ_old(s(t)) to match the MAPPO objective in Eq. (1).
[III-B, Assumption 2] The statement "Consistent with Ref. [8]" for Assumption 2 is not elaborated; a brief justification of why the same Gaussian approximation is appropriate here would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the GIB regularizer is a variational bound with stated assumptions, and the improvement claims are tested by ablations and external baselines rather than forced by construction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The GIB regularizer (Eqs. 12-19) is built from an external NWJ bound, an external Gaussian KL formula, and explicitly stated distributional assumptions, none of which encode the experimental outcome. The regularizer is added as one term in the total loss (Eq. 15), and the claimed benefits are supported by ablation studies (Tables III-IV) and comparisons with external baselines ConsMAC, TarMAC, and MASIA (Figs. 3-4), so the results are not predetermined by the method's own definitions. The VT-ETM threshold and event-trigger loss are also evaluated as an added component rather than being fitted to the reported metric and then re-presented as a prediction. The only self-citation is reference [1] (X. Yu et al.), used as background motivation for multi-agent systems, so it is not load-bearing. The printed KL expressions in Eq. (17) and Eq. (19) have sign and constant issues relative to the standard diagonal-Gaussian KL, and Theorem 1 switches notation between p(Fpsi_E(h)) and p(o_g), but these are correctness/implementation risks rather than circularity: even if the regularizer does not match the derived bound, that mismatch does not make the derivation reduce to its own inputs. No step in the paper forces its conclusion by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method pulls from prior literature: the NWJ bound, the Gaussian KL lemma, the local-dependence and Gaussian-batch assumptions, plus unspecified hyperparameters c, ζ, η, ϱ, ρ. The ledger shows the central claim rests on a stack of domain assumptions and at least one incorrect formula.

free parameters (5)

c, ζ (VT-ETM threshold coefficients) = not reported
Gthreshold = c ζ^t in Eq. 10; these set trigger frequency and are not learned or reported.
η (GIB trade-off weight) = not reported
Appears in Theorem 1's bound, controls compression versus sufficiency.
ϱ, ρ (loss weights) = not reported
Eq. 15 weights for VT-ETM and GIB losses; no values or tuning procedure given.
ωk, ωm (reward weights) = ωk=1, ωm=0.1
Table II sets task and communication penalty weights; hand-chosen and not swept.
σ² (action exploration variance) = not reported
Eq. 7 uses a variance constant that gradually diminishes; its schedule is unspecified.

assumptions (7)

domain assumption Assumption 1: local dependence for agent features
Sec. III-B states that given neighbors within a few hops, remaining agent features are independent; this justifies GIB for non-i.i.d. graph data but is not validated for the formation task.
domain assumption Assumption 2: batch Gaussian distributions
Eq. 18 postulates Gaussian p(o_g), p(FψE(h)), and p(h|E_mi) over each batch; required for the closed-form KL.
standard math Lemma 1 NWJ bound
Borrowed from GIB [9] to lower-bound mutual information; used in the proof of Theorem 1.
standard math Lemma 2 Gaussian KL formula
Used to evaluate the GIB bound; the formula as printed in Eq. 17 has the log-variance sign reversed.
ad hoc to paper Positivity condition in Theorem 1 proof
After inequality (b), the proof requires 1 - E[p(FψE(h))/p(o_g)] > 0, asserted without proof or empirical support.
domain assumption Lossless channel assumption
Sec. II-C assumes lossless channels from i to j, even though the paper's motivation is noisy or limited bandwidth.
domain assumption Branch-out error accumulation
The decreasing threshold is justified by citing rollout branch-out [22], transferring a rollout phenomenon to consensus inference without demonstration.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Robust Event-Triggered Integrated Communication and Control with Graph Information Bottleneck Optimization." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Y5RHKRQS

@misc{pith2026250209846,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Robust Event-Triggered Integrated Communication and Control with Graph Information Bottleneck Optimization},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Y5RHKRQS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.09846}
}

read the original abstract

Integrated communication and control serves as a critical ingredient in Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning. However, partial observability limitations will impair collaboration effectiveness, and a potential solution is to establish consensus through well-calibrated latent variables obtained from neighboring agents. Nevertheless, the rigid transmission of less informative content can still result in redundant information exchanges. Therefore, we propose a Consensus-Driven Event-Based Graph Information Bottleneck (CDE-GIB) method, which integrates the communication graph and information flow through a GIB regularizer to extract more concise message representations while avoiding the high computational complexity of inner-loop operations. To further minimize the communication volume required for establishing consensus during interactions, we also develop a variable-threshold event-triggering mechanism. By simultaneously considering historical data and current observations, this mechanism capably evaluates the importance of information to determine whether an event should be triggered. Experimental results demonstrate that our proposed method outperforms existing state-of-the-art methods in terms of both efficiency and adaptability.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.09846 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** The overall framework of CDE-GIB. where σ 2 represents the variance constant that introduces randomness to the agent’s actions during exploration and gradually diminishes throughout the training process. As mentioned in Sec. II-B, in alignment with MAPPO, we consider [Θ, Ψ] as the parameters of the final policy πθi in Eq. (1), where Θ = [θO, θW , θE]. Based on the aforementioned consensus inference mechanism, the … view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** A clear trend emerges that the adoption of VT-ETM [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Learning curves of consensus algorithms with and without GIB [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png]

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Performance Comparison of consensus algorithms with and without [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

23 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

[1]

Communication-efficient soft actor-critic policy collabo- ration via regulated segment mixture,

X. Yu , et al. , “Communication-efficient soft actor-critic policy collabo- ration via regulated segment mixture,” IEEE Internet Things J. , 2024, early Access

work page 2024
[2]

Deep reinforcement learning for intelligent trans- portation systems: A survey,

A. Haydari , et al. , “Deep reinforcement learning for intelligent trans- portation systems: A survey,” IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst. , vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 11–32, Jan. 2022

work page 2022
[3]

Tarmac: Targeted multi-agent communication,

A. Das , et al. , “Tarmac: Targeted multi-agent communication,” in Proc. Mach. Learn. Res. , Long Beach, CA, USA, Jun. 2019

work page 2019
[4]

Efficient multi-agent communication via self-supervised information aggregation,

C. Guan , et al., “Efficient multi-agent communication via self-supervised information aggregation,” in Proc. Adv. Neural Inf. Proces. Syst. (NIPS) , Virtual Edition, Nov. 2022

work page 2022
[5]

Decentralized adaptive formation via consensus- oriented multi-agent communication,

Y . Xiang , et al. , “Decentralized adaptive formation via consensus- oriented multi-agent communication,” in IEEE Int. Conf. Wirel. Com- mun. Signal Process., WCSP , Hangzhou, China, Jul. 2023

work page 2023
[6]

Multi-agent graph-attention communication and team- ing

Y . Niu , et al. , “Multi-agent graph-attention communication and team- ing.” in AAMAS, Virtual Edition, May 2021

work page 2021
[7]

The information bottleneck method,

N. Tishby , et al. , “The information bottleneck method,” arXiv preprint physics/0004057, 2000

arXiv 2000
[8]

Learning task-oriented channel allocation for multi-agent communication,

G. He , et al. , “Learning task-oriented channel allocation for multi-agent communication,” IEEE Trans. V eh. Technol., vol. 71, no. 11, pp. 12 016– 12 029, Nov. 2022

work page 2022

Show all 23 references

[9]

Graph information bottleneck,

T. Wu , et al. , “Graph information bottleneck,” in Proc. Adv. Neural Inf. Proces. Syst. (NIPS) , Virtual Edition, Dec. 2020

2020
[10]

Robust multi-agent communication with graph informa- tion bottleneck optimization,

S. Ding , et al. , “Robust multi-agent communication with graph informa- tion bottleneck optimization,” IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. , vol. 46, no. 5, pp. 3096–3107, May 2024

2024
[11]

Learning to schedule communication in multi-agent reinforcement learning,

D. Kim , et al. , “Learning to schedule communication in multi-agent reinforcement learning,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1902.01554 , 2019

1902 arXiv
[12]

Learning attentional communication for multi-agent cooperation,

J. Jiang , et al. , “Learning attentional communication for multi-agent cooperation,” in Proc. Adv. Neural Inf. Proces. Syst. (NIPS) , Montreal, Canada, Dec. 2018

2018
[13]

Event-triggered communication network with limited- bandwidth constraint for multi-agent reinforcement learning,

G. Hu , et al. , “Event-triggered communication network with limited- bandwidth constraint for multi-agent reinforcement learning,” IEEE Trans. Neural Networks Learn. Syst. , vol. 34, no. 8, pp. 3966–3978, Aug. 2023

2023
[14]

Fixed threshold event-triggered adaptive sliding mode trajectory tracking control of unmanned surface vehicles,

Z. He , et al. , “Fixed threshold event-triggered adaptive sliding mode trajectory tracking control of unmanned surface vehicles,” in Proc. IEEE Conf. Ind. Electron. Appl., ICIEA , Chengdu, China, Dec. 2022

2022
[15]

Multi-agent actor-critic for mixed cooperative- competitive environments,

R. Lowe , et al. , “Multi-agent actor-critic for mixed cooperative- competitive environments,” in Proc. Adv. Neural Inf. Proces. Syst. (NIPS), Long Beach, CA, Dec. 2017

2017
[16]

The surprising effectiveness of ppo in cooperative multi- agent games,

C. Yu , et al. , “The surprising effectiveness of ppo in cooperative multi- agent games,” in Proc. Adv. Neural Inf. Proces. Syst. (NIPS) , Virtual Edition, Nov. 2022

2022
[17]

Proximal policy optimization algorithms,

J. Schulman , et al. , “Proximal policy optimization algorithms,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.06347, 2017

2017 arXiv
[18]

Attention is all you need,

A. Vaswani, “Attention is all you need,” in Proc. Adv. Neural Inf. Proces. Syst. (NIPS) , Long Beach, CA, USA, Dec. 2017

2017
[19]

Inductive representation learning on temporal graphs,

D. Xu , et al. , “Inductive representation learning on temporal graphs,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.07962 , 2020

2002 arXiv
[20]

Semantics-enhanced temporal graph networks for content popularity prediction,

J. Zhu , et al. , “Semantics-enhanced temporal graph networks for content popularity prediction,” IEEE Trans. Mob. Comput. , vol. 23, no. 8, pp. 8478–8492, Aug. 2024

2024
[21]

Stability and robustness analysis of finite-time consen- sus algorithm for second-order multiagent systems under sampled-data control,

W. Chen , et al. , “Stability and robustness analysis of finite-time consen- sus algorithm for second-order multiagent systems under sampled-data control,” IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern.: Syst. , vol. 53, no. 3, pp. 1445– 1452, Mar. 2023

2023
[22]

Efficient and scalable reinforcement learning for large- scale network control,

C. Ma , et al. , “Efficient and scalable reinforcement learning for large- scale network control,” Nat. Mach. Intell. , vol. 6, no. 9, pp. 1006–1020, Sep. 2024

2024
[23]

Recovering from out-of-sample states via inverse dynamics in offline reinforcement learning,

K. Jiang , et al. , “Recovering from out-of-sample states via inverse dynamics in offline reinforcement learning,” in Proc. Adv. Neural Inf. Proces. Syst. (NIPS) , New Orleans, LA, USA, Dec. 2023

2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Communication-efficient soft actor-critic policy collabo- ration via regulated segment mixture,

X. Yu , et al. , “Communication-efficient soft actor-critic policy collabo- ration via regulated segment mixture,” IEEE Internet Things J. , 2024, early Access

work page 2024

[2] [2]

Deep reinforcement learning for intelligent trans- portation systems: A survey,

A. Haydari , et al. , “Deep reinforcement learning for intelligent trans- portation systems: A survey,” IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst. , vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 11–32, Jan. 2022

work page 2022

[3] [3]

Tarmac: Targeted multi-agent communication,

A. Das , et al. , “Tarmac: Targeted multi-agent communication,” in Proc. Mach. Learn. Res. , Long Beach, CA, USA, Jun. 2019

work page 2019

[4] [4]

Efficient multi-agent communication via self-supervised information aggregation,

C. Guan , et al., “Efficient multi-agent communication via self-supervised information aggregation,” in Proc. Adv. Neural Inf. Proces. Syst. (NIPS) , Virtual Edition, Nov. 2022

work page 2022

[5] [5]

Decentralized adaptive formation via consensus- oriented multi-agent communication,

Y . Xiang , et al. , “Decentralized adaptive formation via consensus- oriented multi-agent communication,” in IEEE Int. Conf. Wirel. Com- mun. Signal Process., WCSP , Hangzhou, China, Jul. 2023

work page 2023

[6] [6]

Multi-agent graph-attention communication and team- ing

Y . Niu , et al. , “Multi-agent graph-attention communication and team- ing.” in AAMAS, Virtual Edition, May 2021

work page 2021

[7] [7]

The information bottleneck method,

N. Tishby , et al. , “The information bottleneck method,” arXiv preprint physics/0004057, 2000

arXiv 2000

[8] [8]

Learning task-oriented channel allocation for multi-agent communication,

G. He , et al. , “Learning task-oriented channel allocation for multi-agent communication,” IEEE Trans. V eh. Technol., vol. 71, no. 11, pp. 12 016– 12 029, Nov. 2022

work page 2022