Test-time Multi-agent Coordination by Decomposed Value Gradient Flow
Organizations: The University of Texas at Austin
Abstract
Offline multi-agent reinforcement learning (MARL) faces a persistent trade-off. Expressive generative policies can represent multi-modal coordination in the data, but cannot distinguish high-value regions, while value-optimized policies exploit the learned Q-function but collapse the multi-modal into a single dominant mode. A single agent's mode collapse can break joint coordination, and simultaneous drift across agents can push the joint policy into unseen regions of the action space. We propose scalable coordination via optimal unified transport (SCOUT), the first offline MARL framework to combine a generative foundation model with a learned value function through test-time action refinement. SCOUT trains two decoupled components: a flow-matching behavioral prior and a decomposed value function. At test-time, it transports behavioral samples toward high-value regions via Stein variational gradient descent. The number of transport steps controls adaptive test-time scaling, replacing a fixed regularization coefficient. Under the individual-global-max (IGM) principle, we prove a single-term KL bound on the joint soft-value gap that vanishes as transport converges, with an irreducible additive residual proportional to the IGM violation. Empirically, SCOUT achieves the best average performance across discrete and continuous offline MARL benchmarks and yields performance improvements in all offline-to-online configurations.
Figures & tables
| Scenarios | Dataset | Gaussian policies | Diffusion policies | Flow policies | w/o policy | |||||
| BC † | MABCQ † | MACQL † | MADiff-D | DoF | Flow BC | MAC-Flow | SCOUT | |||
| SMACv1 | 3m | Good | 16.0 1.0 | 16.3 1.5 | 19.6 0.3 | 19.3 0.5 | 19.4 0.1 | 20.0 0.0 | 19.8 1.0 | 20.0 0.0 |
| Medium | 8.2 0.8 | 18.3 1.2 | 18.9 1.2 | 16.4 2.6 | 18.2 0.2 | 14.7 1.5 | 16.8 1.3 | 17.8 2.2 | ||
| Poor | 4.4 0.1 | 12.4 2.3 | 5.8 0.4 | 9.3 2.1 | 8.9 0.5 | 4.5 0.1 | 6.8 1.1 | 17.0 3.6 | ||
| 8m | Good | 16.7 0.4 | 12.7 6.3 | 11.3 6.1 | 18.9 1.1 | 19.1 0.1 | 19.5 0.2 | 19.4 1.3 | 20.0 0.0 | |
| Medium | 10.7 0.5 | 16.0 1.4 | 16.8 3.1 | 16.8 1.6 | 17.5 1.2 | 18.2 0.8 | 19.1 1.0 | 19.6 0.4 | ||
| Scenarios | Dataset | Offline MARL | Generative modeling | ||||||
| MATD3BC † | MACQL † | ICQ † | OMIGA † | MADiff-D | MAC-Flow | SCOUT | |||
| MA-MuJoCo | Ant | E | 93.8 1.4 | 95.8 1.0 | 93.9 0.9 | 94.2 0.1 | 94.5 0.8 | 94.5 0.9 | 95.8 1.0 |
| M | 42.4 1.0 | 11.2 1.1 | 41.8 1.2 | 42.1 0.4 | 43.0 0.9 | 43.4 0.7 | 43.6 0.7 | ||
| M-R | 8.0 4.2 | -36.8 8.7 | 9.8 4.3 | 17.1 7.2 | 31.6 29.1 | 43.7 1.4 | 42.5 4.6 | ||
| M-E | 59.2 6.1 | 73.5 0.9 | 55.5 6.8 | 66.0 8.9 | 67.7 12.7 | 93.3 0.6 | 94.7 0.3 | ||
| Hopper | E | 87.8 0.1 | 88.9 13.6 | 18.5 19.9 | 21.3 17.3 | 74.6 14.3 | 95.2 0.2 | 90.2 0.4 | |
| Appendix |
Appendix figures & tables4 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Configuration | Configuration | ||||
| 3m - Good | 2s3z - Good | ||||
| 3m - Medium | 2s3z - Medium | ||||
| 3m - Poor | 2s3z - Poor | ||||
| 8m - Good | 5m_vs_6m - Good | ||||
| 8m - Medium | 5m_vs_6m - Medium | ||||
| 8m - Poor | 5m_vs_6m - Poor |
Multi-Agent Coordination
Multi-agent coordination studies how autonomous agents align actions, share information, and divide work to achieve individual or collective goals.
See all 516 papers