Feedback Attribution and Representation Geometry: Metrics for Comparing Individual and Shared Rewards in MARL
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Cooperative multi-agent RL systems routinely use team-averaged rewards, a feedback-attribution choice that gives each agent the team outcome regardless of its individual contribution. We ask whether this leaves a measurable signature, geometric or behavioral, on learned representations. We propose EffRank/n (effective rank normalized by agent count) and Dact (mean pairwise KL divergence between agents' action distributions) as low-overhead diagnostics for reward-attribution effects, then test them on competent MAPPO agents in SMACv2 textttprotoss5vs5, where unit type is encoded in the observation. In an observation × reward-attribution comparison (unit type observed vs. masked; individual damage-contribution reward vs. shared team reward), geometry follows observation rather than reward. With unit type observed, shared and individual rewards have similar EffRank/n (0.31±0.03 vs. 0.29±0.02) and probe accuracy (0.75±0.05 vs. 0.73±0.05, both gg 1/3 chance), while Dact leans higher under individual rewards (1.23±0.06 vs. 1.07±0.20). Masking unit type cuts the above-chance probe signal by more than half, to 0.49 in both reward arms. In short: individually rewarded agents are competent and separable by role, but on SMACv2 the observation explains the geometry and reward attribution shows up mainly in behavior. Thus geometric diagnostics must control for observed role information and test persistent roles that are not directly observed. EffRank/n and Dact add <5% overhead.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 13 of its 15 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 17 Jul 2026.
Builds on
13 of 15 references.
References · 13
- 2021The Surprising Effectiveness of PPO in Cooperative, Multi-Agent Gamescited by 942
- 2017Counterfactual Multi-Agent Policy Gradientscited by 751
- 2018QMIX: Monotonic Value Function Factorisation for Deep Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learningcited by 708
- 2023The Dormant Neuron Phenomenon in Deep Reinforcement Learningcited by 174
- 2022SMACv2: An Improved Benchmark for Cooperative Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learningcited by 122
- 2021DR3: Value-Based Deep Reinforcement Learning Requires Explicit Regularizationcited by 66
- 2019Neural MMO: A Massively Multiagent Game Environment for Training and Evaluating Intelligent Agentscited by 44
- 2023System Neural Diversity: Measuring Behavioral Heterogeneity in Multi-Agent Learningcited by 14
- 2023Attention-Guided Contrastive Role Representations for Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learningcited by 11
- 2023Neural MMO 2.0: A Massively Multi-task Addition to Massively Multi-agent Learningcited by 9
- 2023MA2CL:Masked Attentive Contrastive Learning for Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learningcited by 6
- 2025Low-Rank Agent-Specific Adaptation (LoRASA) for Multi-Agent Policy Learningcited by 4
1 more
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2025Who Gets the Reward & Who Gets the Blame? Evaluation-Aligned Training Signals for Multi-LLM Agents
- 2025Towards Improving Reward Design in RL: A Reward Alignment Metric for RL Practitioners
- 2025Reward Learning from Multiple Feedback Types
- 2025SPA-RL: Reinforcing LLM Agents via Stepwise Progress Attribution
- 2026COSAC: Counterfactual Credit Assignment in Sequential Cooperative Teams
- 2025Understanding Action Effects through Instrumental Empowerment in Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning
- 2026Representation-Aware Advantage Estimation: Your Reward Model Provides More Than A Scalar Output
- 2026Towards a Science of Collective AI: LLM-based Multi-Agent Systems Need a Transition from Blind Trial-and-Error to Rigorous Science