Embodied agents are increasingly capable of perceiving, planning, and acting autonomously in dynamic environments, demonstrating strong performance on complex cooperative tasks. Recent advances typically assume that cooperative tasks are known in advance. In real-world applications, however, hidden-cooperation tasks are more common: the need for cooperation only becomes apparent after an agent observes and interacts with task-related targets. In this paper, we first present HiddenCoop, a benchmark for effectively evaluating agent cooperation in hidden-cooperation tasks. We further propose Discovery-Probability Graph Planning (DPGP), a method for enabling effective agent cooperation in such tasks. At the core of DPGP is a discovery-probability graph that encodes the probability distribution over the number and locations of task-related targets, facilitating effective and efficient information exchange among agents. A search algorithm is then used to derive action plans that minimize expected costs. Experiments show that DPGP achieves cooperative-task success rates of 99.3% on C-WAH and 58.3% on TDW-MAT, surpassing all compared baselines, while also reducing overall embodied execution time and substantially lowering LLM token usage. Our code is available at https://github.com/hnu-vis/DPGP.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Representative agent cooperation settings. (a) Cooperation-Optional Tasks, where each task can be handled independently by a single agent, but involving multiple agents can further improve results. (b) Visible-Cooperation Tasks, where certain tasks inherently demand cooperation from multiple agents and this need is known in advance. (c) Hidden-Cooperation Tasks, where the need for cooperation only becomes apparent after an agent interacts with task-related targets.
Figure 2: Overview of DPGP, showing the time-step execution loop and a step example.
Task SR (%) ↑
EET (s) ↓
TGC-AUC ↑
Tokens (k) ↓
Method
All
Ord.
Coop.
All
Ord.
Coop.
All
Ord.
Coop.
All
C-WAH Evaluation budget: 200 s
CoELA
91.7
99.3
84.0
125.54
106.76
144.31
0.6267
0.6890
0.5644
141.32
CoTS
71.0
99.3
42.7
153.64
125.38
181.89
0.4583
0.5898
0.3267
139.71
REVECA
84.0
100.0
68.0
125.92
92.27
159.56
0.5994
0.7267
0.4720
254.62
PCE
88.0
100.0
76.0
115.61
90.07
141.15
0.6397
0.7407
0.5387
112.03
Table 1: Main results comparing DPGP with baselines on HiddenCoop (C-WAH and TDW-MAT). The best results in each column are shown in bold , and the second-best is underlined .
Figure 3: Additional analyses of execution efficiency and planning performance on C-WAH.
Figure 4: Search decisions of DPGP and the single-point variant at step 6 of C-WAH task 16.
Appendix figures & tables14 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
C-WAH
TDW-MAT
Tasks / source pairs
100 / 50
48 / 24
Ordinary / cooperative tasks
50 / 50
24 / 24
Targets in ordinary / cooperative variants
209 / 209
103 / 103
Ordinary / cooperative target instances
304 / 114
160 / 46
Total target instances
418
206
Appendix
Table 2: Benchmark composition. The ordinary and cooperative variants of each source task have the same number of target instances.
Stage
C-WAH
TDW-MAT
Grasp
Same object; holder Close to it, supporter Close to holder or object.
Same object; both agents within 2 m of it and each other, with free capacity.
Carry
One physical holder and one occupied supporter; soft/hard separation thresholds of 2/3 scene units.
One holder and one occupied supporter; soft/hard thresholds of 2/4 m.
Release
Matching object, destination, and placement type; actual release and On / Inside relation are verified.
Matching drop intents and valid roles and distance; delivery is checked after physical release.
Appendix
Table 3: Key conditions for paired handling. C-WAH uses its native Close relation for interactions; TDW-MAT uses metric distances.
Action
Segments
Mean (s)
Median (s)
p05–p95 (s)
Charge (s)
Grasp
5,521
1.77
1.40
1.40–4.40
1.6
Open
3,479
3.60
3.00
1.80–6.60
3.2
Put in
995
1.67
1.40
1.40–4.20
2.8
Put back
1,635
3.10
1.60
1.40–6.00
2.8
Navigation
165,973
–
–
–
1 unit/s
Turn
–
–
–
–
1.0
Appendix
Table 4: C-WAH action-duration statistics and standardized charges. Duration statistics are computed over verified successful segments from scripted executions under the original pre-compiled joint-script mode and provide an empirical reference for the fixed charges applied identically to all methods. Navigation is charged by horizontal displacement; its measured per-segment mean speed is 0.97 scene units/s (median 0.85). Turn yields no qualifying segments and is fixed by convention.
Parameter
C-WAH
TDW-MAT
Maximum joint candidates
6
6
Shared sampled worlds
8
8
Rollout event cap
160
160
A* expansion cap in uncertainty evaluation
2,000
2,000
Execution action length
8
5
Completion-delay weight
0.1
0.1
Appendix
Table 5: Planning settings. These are method parameters, separate from the public benchmark configuration.
Layer
C-WAH
TDW-MAT
Internal A*
Geometric movement plus unit interaction cost.
Navigation path length; grasp and put have zero proxy cost.
Candidate rollout
Estimated calibrated seconds, joint synchronization, and estimated message cost.
Penalized navigation path length and residual unfinished-work cost.
Public EET
Actual displacement, fixed action charges, idle time, and communication critical path.
Actual joint simulator frames/250, idle time, and communication critical path.
Appendix
Table 6: Cost layers used by the method and the evaluator. Planning proxies and recorded EET have different meanings.
Method
Retained core
HiddenCoop adaptation
CoELA
Communication and planning calls, object memory, and macro-actions.
Public goals and carrying capacity are mapped to native memory. Pairing waits are bounded, and reunion responds to public distance feedback.
CoTS
Tree construction, partner review, staged scoring, and action selection.
In C-WAH, partner review is exchanged through public messages. In TDW-MAT, Alice executes the tree locally with a Bob-role critic; partner state and the final plan are exchanged through public messages. Pending reviews and pairing attempts are bounded; TDW-MAT message compression preserves content and charges all delivered characters.
PCE
Planner–Composer–Evaluator chain, reflection, and utility ordering.
Public cooperation and capacity information is mapped into the original workflow. Pairing control is released after the specified rejection boundary, and ongoing TDW-MAT actions update public memory.
REVECA
Relevance and proximity retrieval, candidate selection, and trajectory validation.
Private initial-room sharing is removed. Exact public requests may occupy a candidate slot; cooperative distance considers both agents, and ongoing TDW-MAT steps do not trigger another LLM call.
Appendix
Table 7: Retained baseline components and behaviorally relevant HiddenCoop adaptations.
Figure 5: C-WAH cooperative-task success (left) and TGC-AUC (right) under offline budget cutoffs.
Group
B (s)
CoELA
CoTS
REVECA
PCE
DPGP
C-WAH (three runs per task)
All
200
91.7
71.0
84.0
88.0
99.7
600
100.0
95.0
95.3
95.7
100.0
Ord.
200
99.3
99.3
100.0
100.0
100.0
600
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Coop.
200
84.0
42.7
68.0
76.0
99.3
Appendix
Table 8: Task success (%) at selected offline cutoffs. Group labels are shown once.
Method
SR loss
AUC loss
Δ EET (s)
C-WAH
CoELA
0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
.0488 [.0376, .0615]
46.59 [37.50, 56.52]
CoTS
10.0 [5.3, 15.3]
.1851 [.1438, .2273]
141.70 [115.10, 170.22]
REVECA
9.3 [4.7, 14.7]
.1353 [.1007, .1752]
121.41 [95.22, 151.38]
PCE
8.7 [2.7, 16.0]
.1200 [.0699, .1770]
97.25 [64.44, 136.69]
DPGP
0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
.0265 [.0211, .0322]
25.46 [19.30, 32.13]
Appendix
Table 9: Ordinary-to-cooperative paired differences with source-pair bootstrap 95% intervals. SR losses are percentage points.
C-WAH all ( N=264 )
C-WAH coop. ( N=114 )
TDW-MAT all ( N=12 )
Method
EET
AUC
EET
AUC
EET
AUC
CoELA
123.97
.8779
146.59
.8537
10.20
.6826
CoTS
165.85
.8176
219.07
.7576
11.78
.6532
REVECA
122.84
.8766
163.07
.8342
11.74
.6543
PCE
113.14
.8866
143.49
.8510
9.87
.6965
DPGP
90.25
.9003
100.70
.8888
7.04
.7725
Appendix
Table 10: Five-method common-success efficiency. EET is in seconds; higher TGC-AUC is better.
C-WAH
TDW-MAT
Method
All
Ordinary
Coop.
All
Ordinary
Coop.
CoELA
627/627
285/285
342/342
69/103
41/57
28/46
CoTS
578/627
272/285
306/342
68/103
41/57
27/46
REVECA
592/627
283/285
309/342
72/103
46/57
26/46
PCE
595/627
285/285
310/342
80/103
46/57
34/46
DPGP
627/627
285/285
342/342
82/103
49/57
33/46
Appendix
Table 11: Terminal target completion in cooperative episodes (completed/required); C-WAH pools three runs, TDW-MAT one.
Method
Physical (s)
Comm. extra (s)
Messages
Tokens (k)
Calls
C-WAH (600 s)
CoELA
129.77
.300
23.5
143.56
128.0
CoTS
162.87
33.385
42.0
162.69
125.7
REVECA
149.11
2.300
24.9
287.17
199.6
PCE
138.69
.001
1.9
123.12
72.5
DPGP
87.85
7.177
30.6
7.16
2.6
Appendix
Table 12: All-episode execution and model-use means at the collection budgets. Tokens are thousands per episode.
Group
B (s)
SR (%) P/D
EET P/D
AUC P/D
All
150
95.0/69.7
93.61/126.88
.5856/.4738
600
100.0/100.0
95.04/133.98
.8957/.8649
Ord.
150
100.0/85.3
82.31/119.49
.6360/.5129
600
100.0/100.0
82.31/120.92
.9090/.8776
Coop.
150
90.0/54.0
104.90/134.28
.5351/.4347
600
100.0/100.0
107.76/147.04
.8825/.8521
Appendix
Table 13: C-WAH probability/single-point comparison (P/D); EET in seconds. Each task group is shown once.
Figure 6: Task16 goal progress against recorded embodied execution time. Both versions succeed.
A shared reward gives agents a common objective, but leaves open when, how and even whether they must cooperate to succeed. We address these questions in the Laser Learning Environment, a multi-agent path-finding environment where cooperation materializes as one agent blocking a laser to let a teammate pass safely. We represent these interactions through temporal cooperation graphs whose timed edges connect helpers to beneficiaries, define six cooperation profiles as overlapping graph predicates, and prove that every cooperative trajectory satisfies at least one. By encoding the environment dynamics and profile predicates as propositional formulae, we distinguish tasks that admit}a profile in some winning trajectory from those that require it in every winning trajectory within a specified horizon. Used as filters, these queries turn a random layout sampler into a generator of tasks with certified cooperation requirements. Experiments with five multi-agent reinforcement learning algorithms show that training diversity improves joint success on unseen tasks when cooperation-free solutions exist. When cooperation is required, greater diversity improves individual-agent exits, but joint success remains near zero. Across five profile-certified pools, final exit rates averaged over algorithms separate the pools into four statistically distinguishable levels but this ordering primarily reflects partial completion: policies collect rewards for individual exits but rarely exhibit the profile required for joint success. Our framework exposes this gap between rewarded partial completion and realized cooperation by certifying what cooperation successful completion requires and using temporal cooperation graphs to reveal what policies exhibit.
Yannick Molinghen, Hugo Charels, Tom Lenaerts
Machine Learning Group, Universit´e Libre de Bruxelles, Belgium. · AI Lab, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Belgium. · Center for Human-Compatible AI, UC Berkeley, USA.
Embodied agents operating in decentralized and partially observable environments have attracted growing attention in recent years. However, existing large language model (LLM)-based agents often exhibit behaviors that are misaligned with their partners or inconsistent with the environment state, leading to inefficient cooperation and poor task success. To address this challenge, we propose a novel framework, Learning Laws of Cooperation (LLawCo), that enables embodied agents to autonomously align with both their partners and task objectives. Our framework allows agents to reflect on past failures to extract misaligned behavioral patterns, which are used to derive high-level behavioral laws, such as "Talk when necessary" and "Wait for partner." These laws are explicitly incorporated into the agents' chains of thought via supervised fine-tuning, aligning their reasoning with task requirements and the behavior of other agents. To evaluate our approach, we introduce PARTNR-Dialog, a large-scale multi-agent communicative and cooperative planning benchmark built on the PARTNR environment. Experiments on existing tasks and our new benchmark demonstrate significant improvements in cooperative efficiency and task success rates. Across four backbone LLMs, our method achieves average success rate improvements of 4.5% on the PARTNR-Dialog benchmark and 6.8% on the TDW-MAT benchmark over state-of-the-art open-source communicative agent frameworks. See the LLawCo project page for details: https://www.merl.com/research/highlights/LLawCo
Qinhong Zhou, Chuang Gan, Anoop Cherian
University of Massachusetts Amherst, USA. · 2Mitsubishi Electric Research Laboratories (MERL), USA.
Agent systems powered by multimodal large language models (MLLMs) have advanced rapidly in recent years, yet existing embodied-agent benchmarks still lack fine-grained diagnostics for multi-agent coordination. Most benchmarks either focus on single-agent task completion or summarize multi-agent behavior with overall task success rates, which can obscure coordination failures such as duplicated work, violations of ordering constraints, resource contention, and desynchronized handoffs. In this paper, we introduce CoCoBench, a construct-level benchmark for evaluating multi-agent embodied coordination in executable household tasks. CoCoBench contains 897 oracle-validated instances organized around four recurring coordination constructs: task allocation, sequential ordering, mutual exclusion, and handoff coordination. In addition to task success rate, CoCoBench provides construct-level scores that measure whether agents coordinate effectively. We evaluate 11 leading MLLMs across different coordination modes, observation inputs, and numbers of agents. The results show that coordination ability is highly construct-specific: strong overall performance does not imply balanced competence across different coordination types. These findings point to new directions for designing targeted model architectures and improving multi-agent coordination ability.