The Dynamics of Policy Gradient in Social Dilemmas with Partner Selection

Multi-agent policy-gradient methods have been shown to converge locally near stable Nash equilibria. Local convergence, however, does not determine which equilibrium is reached. We study this question through basin-entry probability with respect to a target set of equilibria selected by an external criterion, such as payoff dominance. For finite-unroll Meta-MAPG, we show that the update decomposes into ordinary policy gradient plus own-learning and peer-learning corrections, with controlled sampling noise and finite-unroll bias. We identify the peer-learning correction as the main equilibrium-selection mechanism: under a local alignment condition, the probability of entering the certified attraction region of the target stable-Nash set increases, relative to ordinary policy gradient. Because persistent correction may shift zero-update points of the original game, annealing the correction after entering the basin recovers ordinary policy-gradient dynamics and inherits local stable-Nash convergence guarantees. Experiments in Stag Hunt, iterated Prisoner's Dilemma, and preliminary neural-policy coordination environments support this basin-entry view, showing increased entry into cooperative basins under peer-aware updates.

Communication is fundamental to sustaining reciprocity and cooperation in strategic interactions. We identify and formulate the influence attribution problem as the central optimization difficulty inherent in such dynamics for a learning agent: any action or signal the agent emits reshapes the reputations of many third parties along combinatorially branching paths before feeding back into its own future rewards, forcing the agent to account for all of these indirect channels at once when choosing every action. To address this, we introduce the reciprocity gradient, which explicitly backpropagates reward gradients through private estimators of opponents' policies trained from public observations. The gradient flows through the reputation chain itself analytically, rather than being estimated from sampled returns. It jointly optimizes actions and evaluative signals without intrinsic rewards or reward shaping. Empirically, the method recovers near-optimal context-sensitive policies, while sample-based baselines collapse into constant-output policies.

Cooperative equilibria are fragile. When agents learn alongside each other rather than in a fixed environment, the process of learning destabilizes the cooperation they are trying to sustain: every gradient step an agent takes shifts the distribution of actions its partner will play, turning a cooperative partner into a source of stochastic noise precisely where the cooperation decision is most sensitive. We study how this co-learning noise propagates through the structure of coordination games, and find that the cooperative equilibrium, even when strongly Pareto-dominant, is exponentially unstable under standard risk-neutral learning, collapsing irreversibly once partner noise crosses the game's critical cooperation threshold. The natural response to apply distributional robustness to hedge against partner uncertainty makes things strictly worse: risk-averse return objectives penalize the high-variance cooperative action relative to defection, widening the instability region rather than shrinking it, a paradox that reveals a fundamental mismatch between the domains where robustness is applied and instability originates. We resolve this by showing that robustness should target the policy gradient update variance induced by partner uncertainty, not the return distribution. This distinction yields an algorithm whose gradient updates are modulated by an online measure of partner unpredictability, provably expanding the cooperation basin in symmetric coordination games. To unify stability, sample complexity, and welfare consequences of this approach, we introduce the Price of Paranoia as the structural dual of the Price of Anarchy. Together with a novel Cooperation Window, it precisely characterizes how much welfare learning algorithms can recover under partner noise, pinning down the optimal degree of robustness as a closed-form balance between equilibrium stability and sample efficiency.