Feedback Attribution and Representation Geometry: Metrics for Comparing Individual and Shared Rewards in MARL
Authors: Tasha Pais, Richard Higgins
Organizations: Softmax, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Abstract
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 \texttt{protoss_5_vs_5}, 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 ≫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.
Credit assignment is a fundamental challenge in cooperative multi-agent reinforcement learning, particularly in embodied AI settings characterized by limited and delayed feedback as well as dynamically changing numbers of active agents. We propose MARS-RA, a framework that reformulates credit assignment as a rank aggregation problem using contribution-based pairwise comparisons among agents generated by large multimodal models. This shift from absolute to relative estimation ensures robustness against noise and dynamic agent participation, converting comparison results into contribution scores for potential-based reward shaping. We provide theoretical justification for the convergence and robustness of the proposed framework, and show that Shapley values can be used as an interpretive reference. Experimental results on challenging tasks of different types indicate that MARS-RA can guide agents toward effective cooperation.
Cooperative multi-agent reinforcement learning (MARL) benchmarks commonly emphasize aggregate outcomes such as return, success rate, or completion time. While essential, these metrics often fail to reveal how agents coordinate, particularly in settings where agents, tasks, and joint assignment choices scale combinatorially. We propose a coordination-aware evaluation perspective that supplements return with process-level diagnostics. We instantiate this perspective using STAT, a controlled commitment-constrained spatial task-allocation testbed that systematically varies agents, tasks, and environment size while holding observation access and task rules fixed. We evaluate six representative value-based MARL methods across varying levels of centralization. Our results show that similar return trends can reflect distinct coordination mechanisms, including differences in redundant assignment, assignment diversity, and task-completion efficiency. We find that in commitment-constrained task allocation, performance under scale is shaped not only by nominal action-space size, but also by assignment pressure, sparse decision opportunities, and redundant choices among interdependent agents. Our findings motivate coordination-aware evaluation as a necessary complement to return-based benchmarking for cooperative MARL.
Large Language Models (LLMs) in multi-agent systems (MAS) have shown promise for complex tasks, yet current training methods lack principled ways to connect system-level evaluation with agent- and message-level learning. We propose a theoretical framework that unifies cooperative game-theoretic attribution with process reward modeling to transform system evaluation to agent credit to response-level signals. Unlike prior approaches that rely only on attribution (Shapley) or step-level labels (PRM), our method produces local, signed, and credit-conserving signals. In success cases, Shapley-based credit assignment fairly allocates outcomes across agents and is refined into per-message rewards that promote cooperation while discouraging redundancy or sabotage; in failure cases, first-error localization yields repair-aware preferences that penalize harmful steps while rewarding corrective attempts. The resulting signals are bounded, cooperative, and directly compatible with reinforcement- or preference-based post-training, providing a unified and auditable pathway from global evaluation to local supervision in LLM multi-agent training. Our contribution is conceptual: we present a theoretical foundation and training signals, leaving empirical validation for future work.