ARMS: Automatic Reward Shaping for Sparse-Reward Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning

Many Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning (MARL) agents fail to adapt properly to cooperating with agents trained with the same objectives but different seeds, algorithms, or other training differences. This is the problem of Zero-Shot Coordination (ZSC), which focuses on training agents to cooperate well with unknown agents. ZSC has been studied for a variety of tabular cases and simple games such as Hanabi, achieving excellent results. However, existing solutions to ZSC only consider identical rewards for your trained agents and all future partners. This is not realistic for the trained agents, as they do not consider the problem of cooperating with agents that have identical sparse objectives but shape the rewards for those objectives in different manner. To address this issue, we show how to train an ensemble of methods using randomized reward shapings chosen using 4 selection algorithms. Experiments done on the Overcooked environment demonstrate consistent improvements of 62.2%-119.2% in sparse reward over baseline ZSC algorithms when playing with agents that have identical sparse rewards but different reward shapings.

Effective training-time guidance is central to multi-agent reinforcement learning (MARL), yet remains difficult in sparse-reward settings where weak supervision limits coordination and policy improvement, and existing methods often require substantial domain expertise or manual design effort. Large language models (LLMs) provide a promising alternative for flexible learning-signal design, yet existing LLM-based methods remain largely single-agent-oriented, one-shot, or weakly validated for the evolving training dynamics of cooperative MARL. To address these limitations, we propose LLM-ALSO, an iterative LLM-driven adaptive learning-signal optimization framework for MARL. Rather than directly deploying LLM-generated rewards, LLM-ALSO decomposes adaptation into iterative diagnosis, proposal, and validation: a Critic LLM diagnoses stage-specific learning and coordination failures from sparse-return metrics and compact behavior evidence, a Generator LLM proposes candidate reward-shaping configurations conditioned on the diagnosis, and branch-validation feedback refines candidates before they affect the main training trajectory. Through short-horizon validation and stage-aware adaptation, LLM-ALSO promotes only validated updates into training, reducing the risk of unreliable LLM-generated modifications. Experiments on sparse-reward cooperative MARL tasks show that LLM-ALSO improves sparse-evaluation performance and learning efficiency.

Large Language Models (LLMs) offer a natural interface for translating human objectives into reward signals for cooperative multi-agent reinforcement learning (MARL), yet the training-time dynamics of this integration remain poorly understood. We show that dynamically updating LLM-generated reward weights during off-policy MARL violates the stationarity assumption of Potential-Based Reward Shaping (PBRS) and contaminates the experience replay buffer, whose stored transitions carry reward labels computed under stale shaping weights. We characterise the result as a regime-dependent failure whose severity depends on how competent the unshaped baseline already is. To control it we propose two stabilisation strategies: a Phase-Based Freeze Schedule that enforces strict stationarity within training phases, and Exponential Moving Average (EMA) smoothing that bounds per-episode weight drift. We evaluate across three cooperative environments and five random seeds with QMIX, complemented by an exploratory VDN extension, yielding a three-regime taxonomy. In the augmentative regime (Simple Spread), where the baseline is functional (74.4 %), EMA significantly improves success to 86.7 % ($+12.3$ pp, $p<0.01$) while naive dynamic updates collapse it to 15.2 %. In the essential regime (Level-Based Foraging), where the baseline is broken (0.1 %), any shaping unlocks the task (95.9 % under EMA). In the supplementary regime (SMAC 3m), where the baseline is near-saturated (98.8 %), stabilised shaping preserves performance (99.9 %) while unstabilised shaping adds variance without gain. These findings establish reward-signal stationarity as a necessary design constraint and indicate that regime placement is a practical predictor of whether dynamic LLM shaping helps or harms.