mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Reinforcing the World's Edge: A Continual Learning Problem in the Multi-Agent-World Boundary

arXiv 2603.06813 ↗First posted 6 Mar 2026cs.AIcited by 1

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Ordinary decentralized multi-agent reinforcement learning presents each focal agent with a continual learning problem: peer updates change its induced rewards and dynamics even when the joint Markov game is stationary. We connect the lifetime of success-conditioned reusable structure to peer learning and policy reuse. An invariant core represents maximal abstract patterns shared by a high fraction of successful trajectories; survival refers to a fixed pattern's coverage, not an unchanged maximal frontier. An established sharp conditioning bound limits coverage loss to fracvarepsilonp0, where varepsilon is trajectory-law drift, p0 is reference success mass, and drift is smaller than the initial compatible-success mass. Combining this bound with peer-policy movement certifies Omega(frac1η) survival under bounded peer updates of size η and positive coverage margin. An effective-conflict condition yields a matching Theta(frac1η) first-exit law and holds in an analytic exact-policy-gradient class. With success-mass and performance calibration, structural survival also yields policy-value and finite-library transfer guarantees. An exactly solvable corridor tests the structural predictions. Two registered 64-stream studies in continual control and cue-MNIST show that coverage erosion predicts impending failure and enables near-oracle intervention. An exploratory reanalysis of eight learned-partner Level-Based Foraging pairings suggests the same erosion--failure link under peer learning.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 20 of its 57 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 6 Mar 2026.

Builds on

20 of 57 references.

References · 20

  1. 2018Experience Replay for Continual Learningcited by 1,074
  2. 2019Provably Efficient Reinforcement Learning with Linear Function Approximationcited by 514
  3. 2020Towards Continual Reinforcement Learning: A Review and Perspectivescited by 268
  4. 2017Learning with Opponent-Learning Awarenesscited by 218
  5. 2020"Other-Play" for Zero-Shot Coordinationcited by 194
  6. 2021Collaborating with Humans without Human Datacited by 139
  7. 2017Stabilising Experience Replay for Deep Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learningcited by 114
  8. 2016Opponent Modeling in Deep Reinforcement Learningcited by 94
  9. 2017A Survey of Learning in Multiagent Environments: Dealing with Non-Stationaritycited by 93
  10. 2019Dealing with Non-Stationarity in Multi-Agent Deep Reinforcement Learningcited by 90
  11. 2014The LAMA Planner: Guiding Cost-Based Anytime Planning with Landmarkscited by 86
  12. 2020Reinforcement Learning for Non-Stationary Markov Decision Processes: The Blessing of (More) Optimismcited by 75
8 more
  1. 2018Modeling Others using Oneself in Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learningcited by 64
  2. 2017Near Optimal Behavior via Approximate State Abstractioncited by 63
  3. 2018Optimizing Agent Behavior over Long Time Scales by Transporting Valuecited by 57
  4. 2022Influencing Long-Term Behavior in Multiagent Reinforcement Learningcited by 18
  5. 2025Rethinking the Foundations for Continual Reinforcement Learningcited by 15
  6. 2025Agency Is Frame-Dependentcited by 5
  7. 2025The challenge of hidden gifts in multi-agent reinforcement learningcited by 1
  8. 2025Landmark-Assisted Monte Carlo Planningcited by 1

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.

1 paper.