Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Speaking the Language of Teamwork: LLM-Guided Credit Assignment in Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that prompting an LLM to rank each agent's state transitions from that agent's perspective yields dense per-agent potential-based rewards that solve credit assignment in sparse-reward cooperative multi-agent…

desk verdict A useful per-agent LLM reward-shaping recipe with solid but short-horizon experiments; the claimed theoretical bridge from single-agent invariance is asserted, not proved. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.03723 v2 pith:WT7N4C4N submitted 2025-02-06 cs.MA

Muhan Lin , Shuyang Shi , Yue Guo , Vaishnav Tadiparthi , Behdad Chalaki , Ehsan Moradi Pari , Simon Stepputtis , Woojun Kim
show 2 more authors
Joseph Campbell Katia Sycara
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.MA
keywords multi-agentreinforcementlearningcreditassignmentrewardshapingLLMfeedbackpreference-basedpotential-basedsparserewardscooperativeMARL
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 takes on credit assignment in cooperative multi-agent reinforcement learning, where a team shares one sparse reward and no single agent can tell whether its own actions helped. The proposed method, LCA, asks a large language model to rank pairs of states from each agent's own viewpoint, with that agent labeled 'ego' and teammates labeled 'teammate', so the LLM judges contributions to the team goal rather than to the individual. The rankings train a per-agent state-scoring function, and the reward each agent receives is the difference in that score between consecutive observations, a potential-based shaping reward. The paper reports that agents trained this way converge faster and reach higher returns than value-decomposition and hand-crafted reward baselines, and that querying the LLM several times per pair makes smaller, noisier models competitive.

What carries the argument

The central object is the agent-specific potential-based reward r_i(s, a_i, s') = σ_i(o'_i) − σ_i(o_i), a potential difference over the agent's own observation, trained from LLM preference rankings. The LLM ranks state pairs from each agent's perspective using an ego/teammate encoding; homogeneous agents share one scoring model. This object carries the argument because the potential-difference form is what converts noisy LLM rankings into rewards that vanish as ranking confidence drops, and the ego/teammate encoding is what turns a joint team state into a per-agent credit signal.

What would settle it

A direct test is to train the same cooperative task with LCA rewards but replace the LLM rankings with shuffled or random rankings that keep the same score distribution; if policies still reach baseline-level returns, the improvement comes from reward density rather than credit assignment. More decisively, compute the team-optimal policy by brute-force or tabular search in a small partially observable Markov game and check whether potential-based shaping with agent-local potentials changes the optimal joint policy; if it does, the conservation claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

LCA decomposes the joint preference ranking into individual preference rankings: rather than asking an LLM to rank joint states, where one agent's good action can cancel another's bad one, it encodes each state from agent i's perspective by labeling agent i as ego and others as teammates, and asks whether agent i's action was good for the team assuming teammates act optimally. These labels train a state-scoring model σ_i via the Bradley-Terry loss, and the agent's reward is the potential difference σ_i(o'_i) − σ_i(o_i). The paper claims this generalizes single-agent potential-based reward shaping to multi-agent settings and inherits the noise-robustness result that inconsistent LLM rankings drive the reward toward zero, so multi-query aggregation improves training. In experiments across Two-Switch, Victim-Rubble, and Pistonball, the method beats QMIX, VDN, MAPPO with team reward, and MAPPO with hand-crafted individual rewards; even a quantized 70B Llama and an 8B Llama produce usable policies when each pair is ranked twice.

Load-bearing premise

The whole method rests on the assumption that giving each agent a reward equal to the change in its own local 'goodness score' guides the team to its best joint policy, and that LLM rankings of an agent's states actually reflect true credit for the team goal; neither is proven.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Sparse team rewards can be replaced by dense per-agent rewards without hand-engineering, since the LLM supplies the credit signal from a natural-language task description.
  • Multi-query ranking makes smaller, cheaper LLMs viable: two queries with Llama3.1-70B:q3 surpassed baselines even when one query failed.
  • Homogeneous agents can share one reward model while still receiving distinct individual rewards, reducing training cost.
  • The potential-based form inherits robustness: inconsistent rankings across queries drive rewards toward zero rather than injecting misleading signal.
  • Value-decomposition baselines such as QMIX and VDN learn slowly under sparse rewards, while LCA reaches optimal returns within the same step budget.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the potential-difference guarantee transfers to partially observable settings, LCA-style rewards could be layered on top of any MARL policy optimizer, not just IPPO, without changing the team-optimal policy; a direct policy-invariance experiment would settle this.
  • The paper validates LLM rankings only against a hand-built heuristic, not independent human labels, so a study comparing LLM credit judgments with human credit judgments would show whether the signal is truly about credit rather than descriptive salience.
  • The method infers task landmarks from a sampled trajectory, so environments where the team reward never fires during sampling could starve the prompt; testing on a longer-horizon task with very rare success would bound this limitation.
  • Prompt design currently encodes collaboration structure manually as behavior versus task dependence; a natural extension is asking the LLM to infer the dependence type automatically from the trajectory description.
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.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes LCA, a framework that uses an LLM to generate per-agent state rankings, trains a potential-based state-scoring model from those rankings, and uses the resulting dense potential-difference rewards (Eq. 4) to train independent PPO agents in three sparse-reward cooperative MARL environments: Two-Switch, Victim-Rubble, and Pistonball. The authors report faster convergence and higher returns than MAPPO, QMIX, and VDN baselines, and demonstrate improved robustness when each state pair is ranked multiple times, both with synthetic noise and with a quantized Llama-3.1-70B model.

Significance. The core idea is timely and practically motivated: replacing hand-crafted dense reward design with LLM-generated per-agent potential shaping in cooperative MARL could lower the engineering burden of credit assignment. The paper has clear strengths: it evaluates on three distinct environments, covers multiple LLM sources (GPT-4o, Llama-3.1 variants) plus a human heuristic, includes a synthetic noise study, and reports consistent improvements in the plotted training regimes. The multi-query potential-based reward mechanism is a sensible extension of single-agent RLAIF and is worth testing. However, the theoretical robustness claim for the multi-agent setting is not established, and the empirical comparison is weakened by short training horizons and by reliance on an internally generated heuristic as ground truth. If the theoretical gap is closed or explicitly downgraded to an empirical claim, and the baselines are compared on fairer terms, the work would be a useful contribution to LLM-guided MARL.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.1, Eq. (4)] The claim that Eq. (4) 'generalizes potential-based rewards from single-agent to multi-agent settings, while maintaining the claims in (Lin et al., 2024)' is not proven and is not automatic. In a single-agent MDP, potential shaping r = sigma(s') - sigma(s) preserves optimal policies because the cumulative shaping telescopes to a policy-independent constant for fixed start and terminal states. In LCA, each agent i receives r_i = sigma_i(o_i') - sigma_i(o_i) and maximizes its own cumulative discounted return, which equals the team return plus the agent's terminal potential minus its initial potential. Unless the agents jointly optimize the same objective and the per-agent potentials satisfy restrictive conditions, the Nash equilibria of the shaped game can differ from team-optimal joint policies. Partial observability and simultaneous learning strengthen the concern: each agent faces a non-stationary environment because other agents' policies change, so the fixed-MDP invariance argument does not apply. The paper provides no theorem, counterexample, or sufficient conditions under which team-optimal equilibria are preserved. This is load-bearing because the abstract and Section 4.1 use this claimed inheritance to justify robustness to ranking errors. Please either supply a rigorous proof with explicit assumptions, or clearly reframe the robustness guarantee as an empirical property observed in the tested environments.
  2. [Section 5.2] The evaluation of ranking quality relies on a 'human ranking heuristic' that is authored by the same team and used both as the ground truth for evaluating LLM rankings and as the training signal for the 'Human' condition. This creates a circularity risk: agreement with this internal heuristic is not the same as agreement with true human credit assignment. To support the claim that LLM rankings encode valid team credit, the paper should validate the heuristic against independent human annotators (e.g., report inter-annotator agreement on a held-out set of state pairs) and should also report the agreement between each LLM's rankings and independent human labels. Without this, the conclusion that LLM-generated rewards 'handle the credit assignment' rests on an unvalidated, internally generated ground truth.
  3. [Section 5.2 and Figure 3] The headline claim of 'higher policy returns compared to state-of-the-art MARL baselines' is weakened by the short training horizon. The text admits that QMIX and VDN 'learn much faster after a few hundred thousand training steps exceeding LCA training time,' so the plotted curves (250k, 210k, and 18k steps for the three environments) may not reflect the asymptotic performance of these baselines. With only 3 random seeds and no explicit final-performance table with confidence intervals, the reported advantage could be a short-horizon artifact. Please extend the training runs for all baselines to a common convergence-based stopping criterion, or justify the horizon and report results at matched wall-clock time or sample counts where the comparison is fair.
  4. [Section 5.2 and Section 6] The conclusion states that 'without significant performance degradation, LCA is applicable to smaller and more accessible language models.' This overstates the single-query results: in the Two-Switch environment, the paper reports that Llama-3.1-8B 'fail[s] to train a useful policy' with a single query. The robustness only appears after multiple queries per state pair, which require a second LLM or repeated sampling. The claim should be qualified to the multi-query setting, and the added cost of multiple queries should be discussed in the practical-recommendation part of the paper.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Equation (3)] The notation 'conf {yi = (...)}' is not defined; it appears to be the indicator function I used in Eq. (2). Please replace it with consistent notation.
  2. [Section 5.2] The name 'q3 K M' is a typo; it should likely be 'q3_K_M' to match the quantized Llama-3.1-70B naming used elsewhere.
  3. [Related Work] The citation '(Zhang et al.)' is ambiguous because two different 'Zhang et al.' references appear in the bibliography. Please disambiguate with the correct author list and year.
  4. [Section 4.1] The assumption that the team reward 'does not include step penalty and is not finely hand-crafted' is confusing given that the baselines in Section 5.1 use step penalties. Please clarify how this assumption relates to the environments used in the experiments.
  5. [Section 5.3.1] The synthetic noise model independently flips a random percentage of the human-heuristic rankings. This does not capture the structured errors an LLM might make (e.g., correlated misrankings on ambiguous pairs). A more realistic noise model, or an explicit acknowledgment of this limitation, would strengthen the robustness analysis.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: LLM-generated potential rewards are trained on preference labels, while performance is measured on external environment returns.

full rationale

The claimed derivation chain is: LLM pairwise rankings per agent, Bradley-Terry state-scoring model, potential-difference reward r_i = sigma_i(o'_i) - sigma_i(o_i), and IPPO policy training. The scoring model is trained only on LLM or human-heuristic preference labels, and the reported returns are measured by the environment's team reward plus vanilla individual rewards, which are not used to fit the scoring model. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction; the convergence and return claims are external benchmarks against MAPPO, QMIX, and VDN. The main self-citation is to Lin et al. 2024 for the claim that potential-difference RLAIF rewards are robust to inconsistent rankings; although the author lists overlap, that theorem concerns the single-agent RLAIF loss, and the present paper independently validates robustness with synthetic multi-query rankings (Sec. 5.3.1) and Llama two-query runs (Sec. 5.3.2). The unproven step is the generalization of policy-invariance to partially observable Markov games in Eq. 4 (Sec. 4.1), but that is a technical-soundness gap, not a circularity, because the empirical results do not reduce to it. The human ranking heuristic serves as a training and evaluation label, not as the final performance metric, so no part of the derivation predicts its own input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method's success rests on preference-learning math (standard), an imported single-agent robustness theorem (self-cited), and several unproved domain assumptions: that local-observation potential shaping preserves multi-agent optimality, that LLM rankings align with true credit, and that homogeneous role symmetry justifies weight sharing. No genuinely new physical or ontological entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • state-scoring model weights sigma_i = not reported
    Each sigma_i is trained via cross-entropy on LLM or human preference rankings (Eq. 3); the individual rewards in Eq. 4 are defined by these fitted weights.
  • preference dataset size per environment = 4400 Two-Switch; 2000 per agent Victim-Rubble; 1000 Pistonball
    Dataset sizes are chosen by hand and differ across environments; the paper provides no sensitivity analysis of how dataset size affects reward quality.
  • number of LLM queries per state pair = 1, 2, or 4 depending on experiment
    The multi-query count is selected per experiment (single-query in Sec 5.2, two-query for Llama-3.1-70B:q3 in Sec 5.3.2, four-query synthetic in Sec 5.3.1); this is a free knob rather than a derived quantity.
assumptions (7)
  • standard math Bradley-Terry model relates state scores to pairwise preference probabilities (Eq. 1).
    Used to train scoring models from preference labels; standard in preference-based RL.
  • standard math Potential-based reward shaping r = F(s') - F(s) preserves the optimal policy in single-agent MDPs, and inconsistent rankings drive such rewards to zero.
    Central theoretical backbone, imported from Lin et al. (2024); cited rather than re-derived in this paper.
  • ad hoc to paper The same potential-based guarantees hold in multi-agent Markov games when each agent's shaping term uses only its local observation o_i.
    Assumed in Eq. 4 and the following paragraph; no proof provided, and partial observability makes the single-agent argument non-trivial to extend.
  • domain assumption LLM preference rankings, generated from natural-language task descriptions and ego/teammate state encodings, reflect genuine credit assignment toward the team goal.
    The whole method relies on LLM feedback being informative; prompt snippets are given, but no validation against external human labels beyond the author-built heuristic.
  • domain assumption A single trajectory sampled under the sparse team reward reveals key landmarks sufficient to describe the team task to the LLM.
    Section 4.1 states nonzero-reward states on a sampled trajectory are key landmarks; this assumes the reward structure and trajectory are informative enough.
  • domain assumption Homogeneous agents with the same task are exchangeable, so one scoring model can serve all of them (Eq. 5).
    The grouping argument assumes identical observation encodings and identical preference distributions across agents in the same role.
  • domain assumption The environment is a fully cooperative Markov game with a shared sparse team reward and no inter-agent communication.
    Section 3 defines the formal setting; the experiments obey this, but the method's applicability beyond this setting is untested.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Speaking the Language of Teamwork: LLM-Guided Credit Assignment in Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WT7N4C4N

@misc{pith2026250203723,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Speaking the Language of Teamwork: LLM-Guided Credit Assignment in Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WT7N4C4N}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.03723}
}
read the original abstract

Credit assignment, the process of attributing credit or blame to individual agents for their contributions to a team's success or failure, remains a fundamental challenge in multi-agent reinforcement learning (MARL), particularly in environments with sparse rewards. Commonly-used approaches such as value decomposition often lead to suboptimal policies in these settings, and designing dense reward functions that align with human intuition can be complex and labor-intensive. In this work, we propose a novel framework where a large language model (LLM) generates dense, agent-specific rewards based on a natural language description of the task and the overall team goal. By learning a potential-based reward function over multiple queries, our method reduces the impact of ranking errors while allowing the LLM to evaluate each agent's contribution to the overall task. Through extensive experiments, we demonstrate that our approach achieves faster convergence and higher policy returns compared to state-of-the-art MARL baselines.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.03723 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of our method LCA: We first generate the agent-specific encodings of state observations, and then prompt an LLM to execute pairwise state ranking from each agent’s per￾spective in the contexts of collaboration. Specifically, if ranking state pairs in Agent 1’s perspective, Agent 1 will be encoded as the “ego” agent and other agents as “teammates” in the observation, allowing the LLM to differentiate them wi… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Grid world environments with Two-Switch (left), Victim￾Rubble (middle) and Pistonball (right) variants from left to right. Grid World. We examine two multi-agent collaboration scenarios within Grid World (Swamy et al., 2024): Two￾Switch and Victim-Rubble. In the Two-Switch variant, two agents (green and orange triangles) start from random positions in the upper room and at least one of them should navigate to the ta… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The learning curves with reward functions trained from four-query synthetic experiments over 3 random seeds. Env. Steps -1 5 Rewards 2e4 2.5e5 Two-Switch Env. Steps 1 7 5e4 2.1e5 Victim-Rubble Env. Steps -13 0 1e3 1.8e4 Pistonball 1-Query 2-Query MAPPO:Team Reward MAPP…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The learning curves with reward functions trained from two-query with Llama3.1-70B:q3 over 3 random seeds. 5.3.1. Synthetic Ranking Evaluation To evaluate LCA’s robustness, we synthesized ranking datasets with 70% and 80% accuracy and simulated ranking results with fou…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Rolling out individual rewards (blue line) over states of an episode from time steps 0 to 15 in the Victim-Rubble environment. The individual rewards here are the potential-based rewards trained with single-query GPT4o rankings. We plotted the green agent’s individual …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. MARS-RA: Rank Aggregation for Credit Assignment via Multimodal Comparisons in Embodied Multi-Agent Cooperation

    cs.AI 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Credit assignment via LMM pairwise comparisons plus Bradley–Terry rank aggregation and potential-based shaping improves cooperative MARL under sparse rewards and dynamic agent counts.

  2. MASPRM: Multi-Agent System Process Reward Model

    cs.MA 2025-10 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    MASPRM trains a per-agent, per-message value head from outcome-only MCTS rollouts and uses it to guide step-level beam search and MCTS, improving exact match on GSM8K by up to +30.7 points over a greedy multi-agent pass.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

15 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    L., Almeida, D., Altenschmidt, J., Altman, S., Anadkat, S., et al

    Achiam, J., Adler, S., Agarwal, S., Ahmad, L., Akkaya, I., Aleman, F. L., Almeida, D., Altenschmidt, J., Altman, S., Anadkat, S., et al. Gpt-4 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774,

    arXiv

  2. [4]

    R., Bishop, C., Hall, E., Carbune, V ., Rastogi, A., et al

    Lee, H., Phatale, S., Mansoor, H., Mesnard, T., Ferret, J., Lu, K. R., Bishop, C., Hall, E., Carbune, V ., Rastogi, A., et al. Rlaif vs. rlhf: Scaling reinforcement learning from human feedback with ai feedback. In Forty-first International Conference on Machine Learning. Lee, H., Phatale, S., Mansoor, H., Lu, K., Mesnard, T., Bishop, C., Carbune, V ., an...

    arXiv

  3. [5]

    Pebble: Feedback- efficient interactive reinforcement learning via relabeling experience and unsupervised pre-training

    Lee, K., Smith, L., and Abbeel, P. Pebble: Feedback- efficient interactive reinforcement learning via relabeling experience and unsupervised pre-training. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.05091, 2021a. Lee, K., Smith, L., Dragan, A., and Abbeel, P. B-pref: Benchmarking preference-based reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.03026, 2021b. Leike, J., Kr...

    arXiv

  4. [9]

    Value-Decomposition Multi-Agent Actor-Critics

    URL https://arxiv. org/abs/2007.12306. Sunehag, P., Lever, G., Gruslys, A., Czarnecki, W. M., Zam- baldi, V ., Jaderberg, M., Lanctot, M., Sonnerat, N., Leibo, J. Z., Tuyls, K., et al. Value-decomposition networks for cooperative multi-agent learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1706.05296,

    work page Pith review arXiv 2007

  5. [10]

    S., and Agarwal, A

    Swamy, G., Dann, C., Kidambi, R., Wu, Z. S., and Agarwal, A. A minimaximalist approach to reinforcement learning from human feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.04056,

    arXiv

  6. [12]

    Qplex: Duplex dueling multi-agent q-learning

    Wang, J., Ren, Z., Liu, T., Yu, Y ., and Zhang, C. Qplex: Duplex dueling multi-agent q-learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2008.01062,

    arXiv 2008

  7. [14]

    Zhang, A., Parashar, A., and Saha, D

    URL https: //arxiv.org/abs/2103.01955. Zhang, A., Parashar, A., and Saha, D. A simple framework for intrinsic reward-shaping for rl using llm feedback. Zhang, R., Hou, J., Walter, F., Gu, S., Guan, J., R¨ohrbein, F., Du, Y ., Cai, P., Chen, G., and Knoll, A. Multi-agent reinforcement learning for autonomous driving: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.09675,

    arXiv

  8. [15]

    10 LLM-Guided Credit Assignment in Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning A

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1909.08593. 10 LLM-Guided Credit Assignment in Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning A. Individual-Reward Rollout over an Episode t=2 t=3 t=6 t=7 t=9 t=10 t=11 t=13 t=14 Figure

    arXiv 1909

Show all 15 references
  1. [2017]

    Safe, multi-agent, reinforcement learning for autonomous driv- ing

    Shalev-Shwartz, S., Shammah, S., and Shashua, A. Safe, multi-agent, reinforcement learning for autonomous driv- ing. arXiv preprint arXiv:1610.03295,

    arXiv

  2. [2018]

    M., Stepputtis, S., Campbell, J., and Sycara, K

    Lin, M., Shi, S., Guo, Y ., Chalaki, B., Tadiparthi, V ., Pari, E. M., Stepputtis, S., Campbell, J., and Sycara, K. Navi- gating noisy feedback: Enhancing reinforcement learning with error-prone language models. In Findings of the As- sociation for Computational Linguistics: E...

    2024

  3. [2020]

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2003. 08839. Schulman, J., Wolski, F., Dhariwal, P., Radford, A., and Klimov, O. Proximal policy optimization algorithms,

    2003

  4. [2021]

    cc/paper_files/paper/2021/file/ 7ed2d3454c5eea71148b11d0c25104ff-Paper

    URL https://proceedings.neurips. cc/paper_files/paper/2021/file/ 7ed2d3454c5eea71148b11d0c25104ff-Paper. pdf. Touvron, H., Lavril, T., Izacard, G., Martinet, X., Lachaux, M.-A., Lacroix, T., Rozi`ere, B., Goyal, N., Hambro, E., Azhar, F., et al. Llama: Open and efficient found...

    2021 arXiv

  5. [2022]

    Wiering, M

    URL https:// arxiv.org/abs/2205.14953. Wiering, M. A. et al. Multi-agent reinforcement learning for traffic light control. In Machine Learning: Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference (ICML’2000), pp. 1151–1158,

    2000 arXiv

  6. [2023]

    A variational approach to mutual information-based coordination for multi-agent reinforcement learning

    Kim, W., Jung, W., Cho, M., and Sung, Y . A variational approach to mutual information-based coordination for multi-agent reinforcement learning. In Proceedings of the 2023 International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pp. 40–48,

    2023

  7. [2024]

    URL https: //arxiv.org/abs/2408.04295. Kim, W. and Sung, Y . An adaptive entropy-regularization framework for multi-agent reinforcement learning. In In- ternational Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 16829– 16852. PMLR,

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.