mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Non-Stationarity Breaks Permutation Surrogates in Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning: Diagnosis and Remedies

arXiv 2604.23716 ↗First posted 26 Apr 2026cs.AI cs.IT cs.LGcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Reporting guidance for information-theoretic measures is rarely tested against ground truth. We test one guardrail in two multi-agent reinforcement learning games, a social dilemma and a coordination race, where directed influence between selected agent pairs is zero by construction, over 100 seeds. Omitting one precondition, exclusion of the non-stationary training transient, gives false-positive rates of 100.00% and 99.95%: agents annealing exploration independently, in runs that never met, are flagged as influencing one another. Excluding the transient reaches 3.0% in the social dilemma but 11.8% in the coordination game, which stationarity tests explain: 95.7% of social-dilemma series are stationary afterwards against 56.8% of coordination series. So the non-stationarity must be treated, and exclusion is neither the only way nor sufficient. What we recommend instead changes the null model rather than the data: permuting the source within blocks of training time reaches 5.25% and 5.50%, the only one of four constructions at the size of the test in both games, leaving series, statistic and estimand untouched. Titrating injected links of known strength in both games shows it is also the most sensitive of the three, detecting 89.0% in the coordination game where conditioning detects 61.0% on identical pairs, while the ablated test reports 100% with or without a link, so its apparent sensitivity is uninformative. The block count is not critical: every setting from 16 to 256 lands in the nominal region, and a partition derived from the stationarity test removes the parameter, though less sensitively. Code and data are released.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 16 of its 46 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 26 Apr 2026.

Builds on

16 of 46 references.

References · 16

  1. 2017Proximal Policy Optimization Algorithmscited by 14,441
  2. 2018Representation Learning with Contrastive Predictive Codingcited by 7,662
  3. 2018Soft Actor-Critic: Off-Policy Maximum Entropy Deep Reinforcement Learning with a Stochastic Actorcited by 4,635
  4. 2015Dropout as a Bayesian Approximation: Representing Model Uncertainty in Deep Learningcited by 4,416
  5. 2015Trust Region Policy Optimizationcited by 2,503
  6. 2018Learning deep representations by mutual information estimation and maximizationcited by 1,265
  7. 2015Deep Learning and the Information Bottleneck Principlecited by 793
  8. 2018MINE: Mutual Information Neural Estimationcited by 680
  9. 2019On Mutual Information Maximization for Representation Learningcited by 315
  10. 2022Gradients should stay on Path: Better Estimators of the Reverse- and Forward KL Divergence for Normalizing Flowscited by 22
  11. 2014JIDT: An information-theoretic toolkit for studying the dynamics of complex systemscited by 11
  12. 2021Optimization Issues in KL-Constrained Approximate Policy Iterationcited by 10
4 more
  1. 2022A robust estimator of mutual information for deep learning interpretabilitycited by 4
  2. 2014Efficient transfer entropy analysis of non-stationary neural time seriescited by 2
  3. 2019Random Forests for Adaptive Nearest Neighbor Estimation of Information-Theoretic Quantitiescited by 2
  4. 2024Estimation of Shannon differential entropy: An extensive comparative reviewcited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.