pith. sign in

arxiv: 2502.02844 · v3 · pith:XC643BAUnew · submitted 2025-02-05 · 💻 cs.LG · cs.AI· cs.CR· cs.MA

Wolfpack Adversarial Attack for Robust Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning

Sunwoo Lee , Jaebak Hwang , Yonghyeon Jo , Seungyul Han This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-23 03:21 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.LG cs.AIcs.CRcs.MA
keywords multi-agent reinforcement learningadversarial attackrobust MARLcooperative MARLwolfpack attackWALL frameworkadversarial robustness
0
0 comments X

The pith

A wolfpack-inspired attack disrupts cooperation in multi-agent reinforcement learning by targeting a lead agent and its supporters, while WALL training builds defenses through system-wide collaboration.

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

Traditional robust methods in multi-agent reinforcement learning often fail against coordinated attacks on teams of agents that must work together. The paper introduces the Wolfpack Adversarial Attack, drawn from wolf hunting tactics, which first strikes one agent and then attacks its assisting agents to break overall cooperation. It also presents the WALL framework that trains agents to develop broader collaboration so they can resist such attacks. Experiments indicate the attack causes large performance losses while WALL produces markedly more robust policies. This matters for applications such as robot teams or vehicle fleets where coordinated interference could disable group performance.

Core claim

The Wolfpack Adversarial Attack framework, inspired by wolf hunting strategies, targets an initial agent and its assisting agents to disrupt cooperation in cooperative multi-agent reinforcement learning. The Wolfpack-Adversarial Learning for MARL (WALL) framework trains robust policies to defend against the proposed Wolfpack attack by fostering systemwide collaboration.

What carries the argument

Wolfpack Adversarial Attack, which selects and strikes a primary victim agent followed by coordinated strikes on its cooperative supporters to break team performance.

If this is right

  • Coordinated attacks that follow a lead-and-support pattern cause greater performance drops than independent attacks in cooperative settings.
  • Policies trained with the WALL framework retain higher team rewards when subjected to the Wolfpack attack.
  • Encouraging system-wide collaboration during training produces defenses that address targeted disruptions of cooperation.
  • Standard robust training methods leave cooperative MARL vulnerable to attacks that exploit agent interdependencies.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The attack pattern could be adapted to test robustness in non-cooperative or mixed MARL environments.
  • Deployment in physical systems would need additional validation against noise and partial observability not present in the reported simulations.
  • If the attack generalizes across algorithms, it points toward the value of attack-aware training as a standard practice rather than an add-on.

Load-bearing premise

The wolf-hunting analogy produces an attack that is meaningfully more effective than prior coordinated attacks in cooperative MARL settings, and the experimental scenarios used are representative of real deployment conditions.

What would settle it

A side-by-side test measuring total team reward loss under the Wolfpack attack versus existing coordinated attacks on a standard cooperative MARL benchmark such as multi-agent particle environments would show whether the new attack is distinctly more damaging.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.02844 by Jaebak Hwang, Seungyul Han, Sunwoo Lee, Yonghyeon Jo.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Visualization of Wolfpack attack strategy during combat in the StarCraft II environment: (a) The initial agent is attacked, disrupting its original action (b) Responding (follow-up) agents to help the initially attacked agent and (c) Wolfpack adversarial attack that disrupts help actions of follow-up agents. creases by 1. Once kt reaches 0, no further attacks can be performed. In this framework, Yuan et al… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Visualization of follow-up agent group selection method: Agent 4 is initially attacked, and the m agents exhibiting the largest changes in Q i are selected from {1, 2, 3} (m = 2). of Qi . The proposed Wolfpack adversarial attacker πWP adv is a special case of the adversarial policy defined in Definition 3.1. Consequently, the proposed attacker forms an LPA-Dec￾POMDP M˜ induced by πWP adv , and as demonstra… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Illustration of the proposed WALL framework environments. Since the proposed method involves planning at every evaluation, we also train a separate model to predict ∆ˆ QWP t , significantly reducing computational complexity. Details of this approach and the Transformer training loss functions are provided in Appendix B.1. 4.5. WALL: A Robust MARL Algorithm Similar to other robust MARL methods, we propose t… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: MARL benchmarks used in our experiments: (a) PP 3/1 and (b) PP 6/2 in MPE, and (c) 8m and (d) MMM scenarios in SMAC. 5. Experiments In this section, we evaluate the proposed methods on two standard benchmarks in MARL research: the Multi-Agent Particle Environment (MPE) (Lowe et al., 2017) and the StarCraft II Multi-Agent Challenge (SMAC) (Samvelyan et al., 2019), as illustrated in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Learning curves of MARL methods for Wolfpack attack 5.2. Performance Comparison in MPE and SMAC [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Attack comparison on 2s3z task in the SMAC: (a) QMIX/Natural, (b) QMIX/Wolfpack attack, and (c) WALL/Wolfpack attack rithms, such as VDN and QPLEX, as detailed in Appendix E.1, confirming the robustness of the proposed method. To support a more practical evaluation, we assess compu￾tational complexity and general robustness under common perturbations in Appendix E.4 and Appendix E.5, respec￾tively. WALL in… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Number of follow-up agents m 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 Timesteps (10 6 ) 0 20 40 60 80 100 Test Win Rate (%) WALL (T = 0.1) WALL (T = 0.2) WALL (T = 0.5) WALL (T = 1) (a) 8m 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 Timesteps (10 6 ) 0 20 40 60 80 100 Test Win Rate (%) (b) MMM [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Component evaluation of our WALL/Wolfpack attack ness. Comparing ‘Default’ and ‘Follow-up (L2)’ shows that the proposed follow-up selection method enables more se￾vere attacks and trains more robust policies than simply targeting agents closest to the initial agent. Similarly, ‘De￾fault’ outperforms ‘Step (Random)’ in both attack severity and robustness, demonstrating that the proposed planner effectively … view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Traditional robust methods in multi-agent reinforcement learning (MARL) often struggle against coordinated adversarial attacks in cooperative scenarios. To address this limitation, we propose the Wolfpack Adversarial Attack framework, inspired by wolf hunting strategies, which targets an initial agent and its assisting agents to disrupt cooperation. Additionally, we introduce the Wolfpack-Adversarial Learning for MARL (WALL) framework, which trains robust MARL policies to defend against the proposed Wolfpack attack by fostering systemwide collaboration. Experimental results underscore the devastating impact of the Wolfpack attack and the significant robustness improvements achieved by WALL. Our code is available at https://github.com/sunwoolee0504/WALL.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

0 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes the Wolfpack Adversarial Attack framework for cooperative multi-agent reinforcement learning (MARL), modeled on wolf-hunting tactics that target an initial agent together with its assisting agents to disrupt cooperation. It further introduces the Wolfpack-Adversarial Learning for MARL (WALL) defense that trains policies to foster system-wide collaboration against such attacks. Experimental results are presented to demonstrate the attack's impact and WALL's robustness gains, accompanied by a public code release.

Significance. If the reported experimental outcomes hold under scrutiny, the work supplies a concrete attack heuristic and matching defense for robust cooperative MARL, with the code release constituting a clear strength for reproducibility. The wolf-hunting analogy itself does not introduce internal circularity or hidden modeling assumptions that would invalidate the empirical claims; the reader's weakest-assumption concern therefore does not land as a load-bearing flaw. Significance remains moderate because the contribution is incremental and its practical value hinges on comparative performance against prior coordinated attacks, which the manuscript addresses empirically rather than by construction.

minor comments (3)
  1. The abstract asserts 'devastating impact' and 'significant robustness improvements' without any numerical values, baseline names, or statistical qualifiers; adding one or two representative metrics would strengthen the summary paragraph.
  2. Notation for the attack parameters (e.g., coordination radius or target-selection rule) should be introduced once in the method section and used consistently thereafter to avoid reader confusion.
  3. Figure captions in the experimental section would benefit from explicit statements of the number of independent runs and whether shaded regions represent standard error or deviation.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their positive summary of the Wolfpack Adversarial Attack and WALL framework, as well as for the recommendation of minor revision and for noting the value of the public code release. No specific major comments were provided in the report.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected

full rationale

The paper is an empirical proposal introducing a new attack heuristic (Wolfpack, inspired by wolf hunting) and defense (WALL) for cooperative MARL, supported by experiments and public code. No derivation chain, equations, fitted parameters, or predictions are present that reduce claimed results to inputs by construction. No self-citation load-bearing steps or ansatz smuggling appear in the provided text; the central claims rest on external experimental validation rather than internal redefinition.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper rests on standard MARL assumptions (Markov decision processes, cooperative reward structures) and introduces the wolfpack attack as a new method rather than new physical entities or fitted constants; no free parameters are named in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Multi-agent environments can be modeled as cooperative Markov decision processes where agents share a joint reward.
    Standard background assumption invoked by any MARL robustness paper; referenced implicitly in the abstract's discussion of cooperative scenarios.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5650 in / 1325 out tokens · 30424 ms · 2026-05-23T03:21:54.696744+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Interaction-Breaking Adversarial Learning Framework for Robust Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning

    cs.LG 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    The IBAL framework builds information-theoretic attacks that break agent interactions in MARL and trains policies to stay robust under observation and action perturbations.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

24 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 4 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Towards minimax Optimality of Model-based Robust Reinforcement Learning

    Clavier, P., Pennec, E. L., and Geist, M. Towards minimax optimality of model-based robust reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.05372,

    work page arXiv

  2. [2]

    Explaining and Harnessing Adversarial Examples

    Goodfellow, I. J., Shlens, J., and Szegedy, C. Explain- ing and harnessing adversarial examples.arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6572,

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  3. [3]

    What is the solution for state adversarial multi-agent reinforcement learning?arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.02705, 2022

    10 Wolfpack Adversarial Attack for Robust Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning Han, S., Su, S., He, S., Han, S., Yang, H., Zou, S., and Miao, F. What is the solution for state-adversarial multi-agent re- inforcement learning?arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.02705,

    work page arXiv

  4. [4]

    Robust multi-agent reinforcement learning with state uncertainty

    He, S., Han, S., Su, S., Han, S., Zou, S., and Miao, F. Robust multi-agent reinforcement learning with state uncertainty. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.16212,

    work page arXiv

  5. [5]

    Robust model- based reinforcement learning with an adversarial auxiliary model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.09976,

    Herremans, S., Anwar, A., and Mercelis, S. Robust model- based reinforcement learning with an adversarial auxiliary model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.09976,

    work page arXiv

  6. [6]

    Adversarial Attacks on Neural Network Policies

    Huang, S., Papernot, N., Goodfellow, I., Duan, Y ., and Abbeel, P. Adversarial attacks on neural network policies. arXiv preprint arXiv:1702.02284,

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  7. [7]

    Lira: Light-robust adversary for model-based reinforcement learning in real world.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.19617,

    Kobayashi, T. Lira: Light-robust adversary for model-based reinforcement learning in real world.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.19617,

    work page arXiv

  8. [8]

    Byzantine robust cooperative multi- agent reinforcement learning as a bayesian game.arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.12872, 2023a

    Li, S., Guo, J., Xiu, J., Xu, R., Yu, X., Wang, J., Liu, A., Yang, Y ., and Liu, X. Byzantine robust cooperative multi- agent reinforcement learning as a bayesian game.arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.12872, 2023a. Li, S., Xu, R., Guo, J., Feng, P., Wang, J., Liu, A., Yang, Y ., Liu, X., and Lv, W. Mir2: Towards provably robust multi-agent reinforcement learning...

    work page arXiv

  9. [9]

    Robust deep reinforcement learning with adaptive adversarial perturbations in action space.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.11982,

    Liu, Q., Kuang, Y ., and Wang, J. Robust deep reinforcement learning with adaptive adversarial perturbations in action space.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.11982,

    work page arXiv

  10. [10]

    J., Levine, N., Jeong, R., Shi, Y ., Kay, J., Abdolmaleki, A., Springenberg, J

    Mankowitz, D. J., Levine, N., Jeong, R., Shi, Y ., Kay, J., Abdolmaleki, A., Springenberg, J. T., Mann, T., Hester, T., and Riedmiller, M. Robust reinforcement learning for continuous control with model misspecification.arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.07516,

    work page arXiv 1906

  11. [11]

    Robust Deep Reinforcement Learning with Adversarial Attacks

    Pattanaik, A., Tang, Z., Liu, S., Bommannan, G., and Chowdhary, G. Robust deep reinforcement learning with adversarial attacks.arXiv preprint arXiv:1712.03632,

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  12. [12]

    Reward poisoning in reinforcement learning: Attacks against un- known learners in unknown environments.arXiv preprint arXiv:2102.08492,

    Rakhsha, A., Zhang, X., Zhu, X., and Singla, A. Reward poisoning in reinforcement learning: Attacks against un- known learners in unknown environments.arXiv preprint arXiv:2102.08492,

    work page arXiv

  13. [13]

    S., Farquhar, G., Nardelli, N., Rudner, T

    Samvelyan, M., Rashid, T., De Witt, C. S., Farquhar, G., Nardelli, N., Rudner, T. G., Hung, C.-M., Torr, P. H., Foerster, J., and Whiteson, S. The starcraft multi-agent challenge.arXiv preprint arXiv:1902.04043,

    work page arXiv 1902

  14. [14]

    Sample- efficient robust multi-agent reinforcement learning in the face of environmental uncertainty.arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.18909,

    Shi, L., Mazumdar, E., Chi, Y ., and Wierman, A. Sample- efficient robust multi-agent reinforcement learning in the face of environmental uncertainty.arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.18909,

    work page arXiv

  15. [15]

    Value-Decomposition Networks For Cooperative Multi-Agent Learning

    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 internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  16. [16]

    Robust reinforcement learning using adversar- ial populations.arXiv preprint arXiv:2008.01825,

    Vinitsky, E., Du, Y ., Parvate, K., Jang, K., Abbeel, P., and Bayen, A. Robust reinforcement learning using adversar- ial populations.arXiv preprint arXiv:2008.01825,

    work page arXiv 2008

  17. [17]

    Qplex: Duplex dueling multi-agent q-learning

    Wang, J., Liu, Y ., and Li, B. Reinforcement learning with perturbed rewards. InProceedings of the AAAI confer- ence on artificial intelligence, volume 34, pp. 6202–6209, 2020a. Wang, J., Ren, Z., Liu, T., Yu, Y ., and Zhang, C. Qplex: Duplex dueling multi-agent q-learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2008.01062, 2020b. Wang, S., Chen, W., Huang, L., Zhang, F., Z...

    work page arXiv 2008

  18. [18]

    Efficient reward poisoning attacks on online deep reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.14842,

    Xu, Y ., Zeng, Q., and Singh, G. Efficient reward poisoning attacks on online deep reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.14842,

    work page arXiv

  19. [19]

    Reward poisoning attack against offline reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.09695,

    Xu, Y ., Gumaste, R., and Singh, G. Reward poisoning attack against offline reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.09695,

    work page arXiv

  20. [20]

    Xue, W., Qiu, W., An, B., Rabinovich, Z., Obraztsova, S., and Yeo, C. K. Mis-spoke or mis-lead: Achieving ro- bustness in multi-agent communicative reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.03803,

    work page arXiv

  21. [21]

    Towards robust model-based reinforce- ment learning against adversarial corruption.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.08991, 2024

    Ye, C., He, J., Gu, Q., and Zhang, T. Towards robust model- based reinforcement learning against adversarial corrup- tion.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.08991,

    work page arXiv

  22. [22]

    Robust deep reinforcement learning against adversarial perturbations on state observations

    Zhang, H., Chen, H., Xiao, C., Li, B., Liu, M., Boning, D., and Hsieh, C.-J. Robust deep reinforcement learning against adversarial perturbations on state observations. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33: 21024–21037, 2020a. Zhang, H., Chen, H., Boning, D., and Hsieh, C.-J. Robust reinforcement learning on state observations with learne...

    work page arXiv

  23. [23]

    Agents are modeled as particles capable of movement and interaction, governed by simple physical dynamics

    is a widely used benchmark suite consisting of multi-agent scenarios. Agents are modeled as particles capable of movement and interaction, governed by simple physical dynamics. MPE includes both cooperative and competitive tasks, with each scenario sharing a continuous state space and typically partial observability. A standardized implementation of MPE i...

    work page 2021

  24. [24]

    The ally features encode the same types of information for all visible allies, excluding the observing agent

    The enemy features describe each observed enemy, including available action flag, distance to the agent, relativex and y positions, health, shield (if applicable), and unit type. The ally features encode the same types of information for all visible allies, excluding the observing agent. Finally, the own features contain the observing agent’s own health, ...

    work page 2021