Greedy based Value Representation for Optimal Coordination in Multi-agent Reinforcement Learning
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Due to the representation limitation of the joint Q value function, multi-agent reinforcement learning methods with linear value decomposition (LVD) or monotonic value decomposition (MVD) suffer from relative overgeneralization. As a result, they can not ensure optimal consistency (i.e., the correspondence between individual greedy actions and the maximal true Q value). In this paper, we derive the expression of the joint Q value function of LVD and MVD. According to the expression, we draw a transition diagram, where each self-transition node (STN) is a possible convergence. To ensure optimal consistency, the optimal node is required to be the unique STN. Therefore, we propose the greedy-based value representation (GVR), which turns the optimal node into an STN via inferior target shaping and further eliminates the non-optimal STNs via superior experience replay. In addition, GVR achieves an adaptive trade-off between optimality and stability. Our method outperforms state-of-the-art baselines in experiments on various benchmarks. Theoretical proofs and empirical results on matrix games demonstrate that GVR ensures optimal consistency under sufficient exploration.
Key facts. Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 18 of its 25 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 22 Nov 2022.
Builds on
18 of 25 references.
References · 18
- 2017Multi-Agent Actor-Critic for Mixed Cooperative-Competitive Environmentscited by 1,519
- 2015Prioritized Experience Replaycited by 1,070
- 2017Counterfactual Multi-Agent Policy Gradientscited by 733
- 2018QMIX: Monotonic Value Function Factorisation for Deep Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learningcited by 697
- 2019The StarCraft Multi-Agent Challengecited by 589
- 2016Learning to Communicate with Deep Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learningcited by 561
- 2017Value-Decomposition Networks For Cooperative Multi-Agent Learningcited by 490
- 2019QTRAN: Learning to Factorize with Transformation for Cooperative Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learningcited by 372
- 2020QPLEX: Duplex Dueling Multi-Agent Q-Learningcited by 267
- 2020Weighted QMIX: Expanding Monotonic Value Function Factorisation for Deep Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learningcited by 197
- 2019MAVEN: Multi-Agent Variational Explorationcited by 181
- 2017A Deeper Look at Experience Replaycited by 104
6 more
- 2019Deep Coordination Graphscited by 96
- 2020Qatten: A General Framework for Cooperative Multiagent Reinforcement Learningcited by 81
- 2020UneVEn: Universal Value Exploration for Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learningcited by 32
- 2018Multiagent Soft Q-Learningcited by 26
- 2020Q-value Path Decomposition for Deep Multiagent Reinforcement Learningcited by 23
- 2019SMIX(λ): Enhancing Centralized Value Functions for Cooperative Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learningcited by 15
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2023: 2; 2024: 0; 2025: 0; 2026: 2.
4 papers.
- 2023Counterfactual Conservative Q Learning for Offline Multi-agent Reinforcement Learningcited by 36
- 2026Retaining Suboptimal Actions to Follow Shifting Optima in Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learningcited by 3
- 2023Adaptive Value Decomposition with Greedy Marginal Contribution Computation for Cooperative Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learningcited by 0
- 2026Breakthrough the Suboptimal Stable Point in Value-Factorization-Based Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learningcited by 0
- 2026Breakthrough the Suboptimal Stable Point in Value-Factorization-Based Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning7 Apr 2026
- 2026Retaining Suboptimal Actions to Follow Shifting Optima in Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning19 Feb 2026
- 2023Counterfactual Conservative Q Learning for Offline Multi-agent Reinforcement Learning22 Sep 2023
- 2023Adaptive Value Decomposition with Greedy Marginal Contribution Computation for Cooperative Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning14 Feb 2023