Organizations: College of Computer Science and Technology, and Key Laboratory of Social Computing and Cognitive Intelligence (Ministry of Education), Dalian University of Technology, China · Center for Frontier AI Research, Institute of High Performance Computing, Singapore Institute of Manufacturing Technology, Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR), Singapore · School of Computer Science and Engineering, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
Non-stationarity arises from concurrent policy updates and leads to persistent environmental fluctuations. Existing approaches like Centralized Training with Decentralized Execution (CTDE) and sequential update schemes mitigate this issue. However, since the perception of the policies of other agents remains dependent on sampling environmental interaction data, the agent essentially operates in a passive perception state. This inevitably triggers equilibrium oscillations and significantly slows the convergence speed of the system. To address this issue, we propose Gradient Realignment via Active Shared Perception (GRASP), a novel framework that defines generalized Bellman equilibrium as a stable objective for policy evolution. The core mechanism of GRASP involves utilizing the independent gradients of agents to derive a defined consensus gradient, enabling agents to actively perceive policy updates and optimize team collaboration. Theoretically, we leverage the Kakutani Fixed-Point Theorem to prove that the consensus direction u∗ guarantees the existence and attainability of this equilibrium. Extensive experiments on StarCraft II Multi-Agent Challenge (SMAC) and Google Research Football (GRF) demonstrate the scalability and promising performance of the framework.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Comparison of win rate learning curves between GRASP and baseline algorithms (MAPPO, HAPPO, and MA2E ) across six scenarios in SMAC and SMACv2. Solid lines represent the average win rate from multiple runs, while shaded areas indicate standard deviation.
Scenario
GRASP (Ours)
MAPPO
HAPPO
MA2E
MMM2
0.967 ± 0.031
0.717 ± 0.218
0.509 ± 0.168
0.839 ± 0.021
3s5z vs 3s6z
0.783 ± 0.360
0.619 ± 0.345
0.461 ± 0.232
0.027 ± 0.010
5m vs 6m
0.909 ± 0.044
0.815 ± 0.075
0.350 ± 0.321
0.372 ± 0.114
Terran (10 agents)
0.467 ± 0.103
0.571 ± 0.000
0.233 ± 0.074
0.583 ± 0.057
Protoss (10 agents)
0.563 ± 0.045
0.491 ± 0.094
0.250 ± 0.069
0.391 ± 0.054
Zerg (5 agents)
0.491 ± 0.084
0.418 ± 0.083
0.363 ± 0.020
0.396 ± 0.065
Table 1: Win rate comparison (Mean ± Std) on different scenarios. The best results are highlighted in bold .
Figure 2: Comparison of win rate learning curves between GRASP and baseline algorithms (MAPPO and MA2E ) across three scenarios in GRF. Solid lines represent the average win rate from multiple runs, while shaded areas indicate standard deviation.
Figure 3: Comparison of win rate learning curves between GRASP and MAPPO in the Simple Spread scenario of MPE. Solid lines represent the average win rate from multiple runs, while shaded areas indicate standard deviation.
Appendix figures & tables11 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 4: Comparison of win rate learning curves between GRASP-QMIX and QMIX across three scenarios in SMAC. Solid lines represent the average win rate from multiple runs, while shaded areas indicate standard deviation.
Figure 5: Comparison of win rate learning curves between GRASP and MAPPO in 27m_vs_30m scenario of MPE. Solid lines represent the average win rate from multiple runs, while shaded areas indicate standard deviation.
Hyperparameter
GRASP
MAPPO
HAPPO
MA2E
GRASP+QMIX
QMIX
Learning Rate
5×10−4
5×10−4
5×10−4
1×10−3
1×10−3
1×10−3
Optimizer
Adam
Adam
Adam
Adam
Adam
Adam
PPO Epochs
5 – 10
5 – 10
5
N/A
N/A
N/A
Mini-batch Size
1 – 2
1 – 2
1
32
32
32
Gamma ( γ )
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
Buffer size
64
64
64
5000
5000
5000
Appendix
Table 2: Hyperparameter settings for GRASP, MAPPO, HAPPO, and MA2E .
Table 5: Mixing Network and Hypernetwork Architecture.
Hyperparameters
Value
Batch size
32
Input embedding
24
The number of heads
4
The number of encoder layers
3
The number of decoder layers
2
Steps for fine-tuning
500
Appendix
Table 6: The hyperparameter settings for MA2E
Scenario Name
Scale
Description
Key Challenges
Testing Focus
Academy Counterattack Hard
Small (4 Agents)
Rapid transition from defense to offense at high speed.
High Dynamics, Split-second Decision Making
Responsiveness, Dynamic Control
Academy 3 Vs 1 With Keeper
Small (3 Agents)
Exploiting numerical advantage to dismantle defense.
Local Coordination, Spatial Reasoning
Tactical Cooperation, Precise Passing
Academy Corner
Large (11 Agents)
Full-team corner kick situation with crowded penalty area.
Massive State Space, Occlusion & Collisions
Scalability, Consensus in Noise
Appendix
Table 7: Characteristics of the Selected Google Research Football Scenarios. These scenarios were chosen to evaluate the GRASP framework across varying levels of difficulty, agent scale, and tactical requirements.
Scenario
Ally Units
Enemy Units
Difficulty
Step Limit
SMAC
5m_vs_6m
5 Marines
6 Marines
Hard
70
MMM2
10 Units 1 1 1 1 Medivac, 2 Marauders, 7 Marines
12 Units 2 2 2 1 Medivac, 3 Marauders, 8 Marines
Super Hard
180
3s5z_vs_3s6z
8 Units 3 3 3 3 Stalkers, 5 Zealots
9 Units 4 4 4 3 Stalkers, 6 Zealots
Hard
170
27m_vs_30m
27 Marines
30 Marines
Super Hard
180
8m_vs_9m
8 Marines
9 Marines
Hard
120
Appendix
Table 8: Detailed configurations for SMAC and SMACv2 scenarios.
Scenario
Ally Agents
Step Limit
Reward Type
Google Football
Counterattack Hard
4
400
Team collaboration provides
3 Vs 1 with Keeper
3
400
Team collaboration provides
Academy Corner
10
400
Team collaboration provides
MPE
Simple Spread
3
25
Individual rewards are consolidated into team rewards
Appendix
Table 9: Configurations for Google Football and MPE scenarios.
Component
Configuration Detail
CPU Model
13th Gen Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-13400
CPU Architecture
x86_64 (10 Cores, 16 Threads)
CPU Max Frequency
4.60 GHz
GPU Model
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090
GPU Memory
24564 MiB (24 GB GDDR6X)
Driver Version
535.183.01
Appendix
Table 10: Hardware and Software Configurations for the Training Environment.
Cooperative multi-agent reinforcement learning (MARL) trains agents to coordinate toward shared goals under partial information and decentralized control.
Cooperative tasks in Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning (MARL) require agents to collectively maximize a shared return. Under the Centralized Training with Decentralized Execution (CTDE) paradigm, policy gradients have remained difficult to compute directly. Prior methods largely follow two approaches: independent factorized updates with centralized critics, which lack general joint-improvement guarantees without value decomposition assumptions, or alternating best-response updates, which can converge to suboptimal Nash Equilibria. In this paper, we show the joint policy gradient admits an exact decentralized decomposition of per-agent terms, each formed from per-agent score functions and decentralized critics. Based on this decomposition, we develop Agent-Chained Policy Optimization (ACPO), where actors are trained independently, with their updates together constituting a single step on the joint policy gradient. Central to this result is a serialized view of the simultaneous joint decision in which agents commit actions one at a time, each conditioning on a belief over preceding actions. The belief acts as the coordination mechanism which ties the independent per-agent updates into a joint gradient step. We evaluate ACPO on Multi-Robot Warehouse, SMACv2, and MA-MuJoCo, where it outperforms strong baselines, with the gap widening as the number of agents grows.
Daiki E. Matsunaga, Junho Na, Tri Wahyu Guntara +4
Scaling cooperative multi-agent reinforcement learning (MARL) is fundamentally limited by cross-agent noise. When agents share a common reward, each agent's learning signal is computed from a shared return that depends on all agents, so the stochasticity of the other agents enters the signal as cross-agent noise that grows with N. Many engineering systems, such as cloud computing and power systems, have differentiable analytical models that prescribe efficient system states, providing a new reference beyond noisy shared returns. In this work, we propose Descent-Guided Policy Gradient (DG-PG), a framework that augments policy-gradient updates with a low-noise descent signal toward this reference. We prove that DG-PG reduces policy-gradient estimator variance from O(N) to O(1), preserves the stationary points of the cooperative objective, and achieves agent-independent sample complexity O(1/ε3). We evaluate DG-PG on cloud resource scheduling and power dispatch tasks, which involve discrete and continuous decisions, respectively. In both tasks, DG-PG converges within 10 episodes on average at every scale up to 1500 heterogeneous agents.
In this paper, we propose a novel framework for multi-agent reinforcement learning that enhances sample efficiency and coordination through accurate per-agent advantage estimation. The core of our approach is Generalized Per-Agent Advantage Estimator (GPAE), which employs a per-agent value iteration operator to compute precise per-agent advantages. This operator enables stable off-policy learning by indirectly estimating values via action probabilities, eliminating the need for direct Q-function estimation. To further refine estimation, we introduce a double-truncated importance sampling ratio scheme. This scheme improves credit assignment for off-policy trajectories by balancing sensitivity to the agent's own policy changes with robustness to non-stationarity from other agents. Experiments on benchmarks demonstrate that our approach outperforms existing approaches, excelling in coordination and sample efficiency for complex scenarios.
Seongmin Kim, Giseung Park, Woojun Kim +3
KAIST Daejeon, Korea · University of Toronto Toronto, Ontario, Canada · Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA +1