MARS-RA: Rank Aggregation for Credit Assignment via Multimodal Comparisons in Embodied Multi-Agent Cooperation

To promote cooperation in Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning, the reward signals of all agents can be aggregated together, forming global rewards that are commonly known as the fully cooperative setting. However, global rewards are usually noisy because they contain the contributions of all agents, which have to be resolved in the credit assignment process. On the other hand, using local reward benefits from faster learning due to the separation of agents' contributions, but can be suboptimal as agents myopically optimize their own reward while disregarding the global optimality. In this work, we propose a method that combines the merits of both approaches. By using a graph of interaction between agents, our method discerns the individual agent contribution in a more fine-grained manner than a global reward, while alleviating the cooperation problem with agents' local reward. We also introduce a practical approach for approximating such a graph. Our experiments demonstrate the flexibility of the approach, enabling improvements over the traditional local and global reward settings.

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.

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 $D_\text{act}$ (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 $\times$ 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/$n$ ($0.31{\pm}0.03$ vs.\ $0.29{\pm}0.02$) and probe accuracy ($0.75{\pm}0.05$ vs.\ $0.73{\pm}0.05$, both $\gg 1/3$ chance), while $D_\text{act}$ leans higher under individual rewards ($1.23{\pm}0.06$ vs.\ $1.07{\pm}0.20$). 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 $D_\text{act}$ add $<$5% overhead.