mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Cooperation and Fairness in Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning

arXiv 2410.14916 ↗First posted 19 Oct 2024cs.MA cs.AI cs.ROcited by 5

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Multi-agent systems are trained to maximize shared cost objectives, which typically reflect system-level efficiency. However, in the resource-constrained environments of mobility and transportation systems, efficiency may be achieved at the expense of fairness -- certain agents may incur significantly greater costs or lower rewards compared to others. Tasks could be distributed inequitably, leading to some agents receiving an unfair advantage while others incur disproportionately high costs. It is important to consider the tradeoffs between efficiency and fairness. We consider the problem of fair multi-agent navigation for a group of decentralized agents using multi-agent reinforcement learning (MARL). We consider the reciprocal of the coefficient of variation of the distances traveled by different agents as a measure of fairness and investigate whether agents can learn to be fair without significantly sacrificing efficiency (i.e., increasing the total distance traveled). We find that by training agents using min-max fair distance goal assignments along with a reward term that incentivizes fairness as they move towards their goals, the agents (1) learn a fair assignment of goals and (2) achieve almost perfect goal coverage in navigation scenarios using only local observations. For goal coverage scenarios, we find that, on average, our model yields a 14% improvement in efficiency and a 5% improvement in fairness over a baseline trained using random assignments. Furthermore, an average of 21% improvement in fairness can be achieved compared to a model trained on optimally efficient assignments; this increase in fairness comes at the expense of only a 7% decrease in efficiency. Finally, we extend our method to environments in which agents must complete coverage tasks in prescribed formations and show that it is possible to do so without tailoring the models to specific formation shapes.

Key facts. Cited by 5 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 18 of its 61 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 19 Oct 2024.

Builds on

18 of 61 references.

References · 18

  1. 2017Multi-Agent Actor-Critic for Mixed Cooperative-Competitive Environmentscited by 1,519
  2. 2021The Surprising Effectiveness of PPO in Cooperative, Multi-Agent Gamescited by 903
  3. 2020Fairness in Machine Learning: A Surveycited by 369
  4. 2018TarMAC: Targeted Multi-Agent Communicationcited by 201
  5. 2018Learning Attentional Communication for Multi-Agent Cooperationcited by 170
  6. 2018Interactive Supercomputing on 40,000 Cores for Machine Learning and Data Analysiscited by 110
  7. 2022A Survey of Multi-Agent Deep Reinforcement Learning with Communicationcited by 103
  8. 2019Learning Fairness in Multi-Agent Systemscited by 44
  9. 2019Learning Transferable Cooperative Behavior in Multi-Agent Teamscited by 40
  10. 2022Scalable Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning through Intelligent Information Aggregationcited by 34
  11. 2019Graph Policy Gradients for Large Scale Robot Controlcited by 27
  12. 2016Vehicle Routing Problems for Drone Deliverycited by 23
6 more
  1. 2023Is Centralized Training with Decentralized Execution Framework Centralized Enough for MARL?cited by 18
  2. 2021Cooperative Multi-Agent Fairness and Equivariant Policiescited by 8
  3. 2021Strategic Hub-Based Platoon Coordination under Uncertain Travel Timescited by 4
  4. 2022Satellite Navigation and Coordination with Limited Information Sharingcited by 3
  5. 2021Throughput-Fairness Tradeoffs in Mobility Platformscited by 1
  6. 2024Distributed Online Planning for Min-Max Problems in Networked Markov Gamescited by 1

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2025: 3; 2026: 2.

5 papers.