mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Emergent Coordination and Phase Structure in Independent Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning

arXiv 2511.23315 ↗First posted 28 Nov 2025cs.LGcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

A clearer understanding of when coordination emerges, fluctuates, or collapses in decentralized multi-agent reinforcement learning (MARL) is increasingly sought in order to characterize the dynamics of multi-agent learning systems. We revisit fully independent Q-learning (IQL) as a minimal decentralized testbed and run large-scale experiments across environment size L and agent density rho. We construct a phase map using two axes - the cooperative success rate (CSR) and a stability index derived from TD-error variance - revealing three distinct regimes: a coordinated and stable phase, a fragile transition region, and a jammed or disordered phase. A sharp double Instability Ridge separates these regimes and corresponds to persistent kernel drift, the time-varying shift of each agent's effective transition kernel induced by others' policy updates. Synchronization analysis further shows that temporal alignment is required for sustained cooperation, and that competition between drift and synchronization generates the fragile regime. Removing agent identifiers eliminates drift entirely and collapses the three-phase structure, demonstrating that small inter-agent asymmetries are a necessary driver of drift. Overall, the results show that decentralized MARL exhibits a coherent phase structure governed by the interaction between scale, density, and kernel drift, suggesting that emergent coordination behaves as a distribution-interaction-driven phase phenomenon.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 12 of its 19 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 28 Nov 2025.

Builds on

12 of 19 references.

References · 12

  1. 2017Multi-Agent Actor-Critic for Mixed Cooperative-Competitive Environmentscited by 1,558
  2. 2017Counterfactual Multi-Agent Policy Gradientscited by 751
  3. 2018QMIX: Monotonic Value Function Factorisation for Deep Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learningcited by 708
  4. 2017Value-Decomposition Networks For Cooperative Multi-Agent Learningcited by 503
  5. 2017A Brief Survey of Deep Reinforcement Learningcited by 483
  6. 2017Deep Reinforcement Learning: An Overviewcited by 333
  7. 2019Emergent Tool Use From Multi-Agent Autocurriculacited by 313
  8. 2017Multi-agent Reinforcement Learning in Sequential Social Dilemmascited by 209
  9. 2020Weighted QMIX: Expanding Monotonic Value Function Factorisation for Deep Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learningcited by 197
  10. 2017Stabilising Experience Replay for Deep Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learningcited by 117
  11. 2017A Survey of Learning in Multiagent Environments: Dealing with Non-Stationaritycited by 94
  12. 2019Dealing with Non-Stationarity in Multi-Agent Deep Reinforcement Learningcited by 93

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Embodiment-Induced Coordination Regimes in Tabular Multi-Agent Q-Learning
  2. 2026Evolutionary Stability Does Not Guarantee Learning Accessibility: A Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning Perspective on Cooperation Emergence
  3. 2021Offline Decentralized Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning
  4. 2026Bounded Coupled AI Learning Dynamics in Tri-Hierarchical Drone Swarms
  5. 2025Convergence and Connectivity: Dynamics of Multi-Agent Q-Learning in Random Networks
  6. 2025Multi-agent In-context Coordination via Decentralized Memory Retrieval
  7. 2025Offline Multi-agent Reinforcement Learning via Sequential Score Decomposition
  8. 2025Synchronization Dynamics of Heterogeneous, Collaborative Multi-Agent AI Systems