😇
Deep Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning
  • Deep Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning
  • Abstract & Contents
    • Abstract
  • 1. Introduction
    • 1. INTRODUCTION
      • 1.1 The Industrial Revolution, Cognition, and Computers
      • 1.2 Deep Multi-Agent Reinforcement-Learning
      • 1.3 Overall Structure
  • 2. Background
    • 2. BACKGROUND
      • 2.1 Reinforcement Learning
      • 2.2 Multi-Agent Settings
      • 2.3 Centralized vs Decentralized Control
      • 2.4 Cooperative, Zero-sum, and General-Sum
      • 2.5 Partial Observability
      • 2.6 Centralized Training, Decentralized Execution
      • 2.7 Value Functions
      • 2.8 Nash Equilibria
      • 2.9 Deep Learning for MARL
      • 2.10 Q-Learning and DQN
      • 2.11 Reinforce and Actor-Critic
  • I Learning to Collaborate
    • 3. Counterfactual Multi-Agent Policy Gradients
      • 3.1 Introduction
      • 3.2 Related Work
      • 3.3 Multi-Agent StarCraft Micromanagement
      • 3.4 Methods
        • 3.4.1 Independent Actor-Critic
        • 3.4.2 Counterfactual Multi-Agent Policy Gradients
        • 3.4.2.1 baseline lemma
        • 3.4.2.2 COMA Algorithm
      • 3.5 Results
      • 3.6 Conclusions & Future Work
    • 4 Multi-Agent Common Knowledge Reinforcement Learning
      • 4.1 Introduction
      • 4.2 Related Work
      • 4.3 Dec-POMDP and Features
      • 4.4 Common Knowledge
      • 4.5 Multi-Agent Common Knowledge Reinforcement Learning
      • 4.6 Pairwise MACKRL
      • 4.7 Experiments and Results
      • 4.8 Conclusion & Future Work
    • 5 Stabilizing Experience Replay
      • 5.1 Introduction
      • 5.2 Related Work
      • 5.3 Methods
        • 5.3.1 Multi-Agent Importance Sampling
        • 5.3.2 Multi-Agent Fingerprints
      • 5.4 Experiments
        • 5.4.1 Architecture
      • 5.5 Results
        • 5.5.1 Importance Sampling
        • 5.5.2 Fingerprints
        • 5.5.3 Informative Trajectories
      • 5.6 Conclusion & Future Work
  • II Learning to Communicate
    • 6. Learning to Communicate with Deep Multi-Agent ReinforcementLearning
      • 6.1 Introduction
      • 6.2 Related Work
      • 6.3 Setting
      • 6.4 Methods
        • 6.4.1 Reinforced Inter-Agent Learning
        • 6.4.2 Differentiable Inter-Agent Learning
      • 6.5 DIAL Details
      • 6.6 Experiments
        • 6.6.1 Model Architecture
        • 6.6.2 Switch Riddle
        • 6.6.3 MNIST Games
        • 6.6.4 Effect of Channel Noise
      • 6.7 Conclusion & Future Work
    • 7. Bayesian Action Decoder
      • 7.1 Introduction
      • 7.2 Setting
      • 7.3 Method
        • 7.3.1 Public belief
        • 7.3.2 Public Belief MDP
        • 7.3.3 Sampling Deterministic Partial Policies
        • 7.3.4 Factorized Belief Updates
        • 7.3.5 Self-Consistent Beliefs
      • 7.4 Experiments and Results
        • 7.4.1 Matrix Game
        • 7.4.2 Hanabi
        • 7.4.3 Observations and Actions
        • 7.4.4 Beliefs in Hanabi
        • 7.4.5 Architecture Details for Baselines and Method
        • 7.4.6 Hyperparamters
        • 7.4.7 Results on Hanabi
      • 7.5 Related Work
        • 7.5.1 Learning to Communicate
        • 7.5.2 Research on Hanabi
        • 7.5.3 Belief State Methods
      • 7.6 Conclusion & Future Work
  • III Learning to Reciprocate
    • 8. Learning with Opponent-Learning Awareness
      • 8.1 Introduction
      • 8.2 Related Work
      • 8.3 Methods
        • 8.3.1 Naive Learner
        • 8.3.2 Learning with Opponent Learning Awareness
        • 8.3.3. Learning via Policy gradient
        • 8.3.4 LOLA with Opponent modeling
        • 8.3.5 Higher-Order LOLA
      • 8.4 Experimental Setup
        • 8.4.1 Iterated Games
        • 8.4.2 Coin Game
        • 8.4.3 Training Details
      • 8.5 Results
        • 8.5.1 Iterated Games
        • 8.5.2 Coin Game
        • 8.5.3 Exploitability of LOLA
      • 8.6 Conclusion & Future Work
    • 9. DiCE: The Infinitely Differentiable Monte Carlo Estimator
      • 9.1 Introduction
      • 9.2 Background
        • 9.2.1 Stochastic Computation Graphs
        • 9.2.2 Surrogate Losses
      • 9.3 Higher Order Gradients
        • 9.3.1 Higher Order Gradient Estimators
        • 9.3.2 Higher Order Surrogate Losses
        • 9.3.3. Simple Failing Example
      • 9.4 Correct Gradient Estimators with DiCE
        • 9.4.1 Implement of DiCE
        • 9.4.2 Casuality
        • 9.4.3 First Order Variance Reduction
        • 9.4.4 Hessian-Vector Product
      • 9.5 Case Studies
        • 9.5.1 Empirical Verification
        • 9.5.2 DiCE For multi-agent RL
      • 9.6 Related Work
      • 9.7 Conclusion & Future Work
  • Reference
    • Reference
  • After
    • 보충
    • 역자 후기
Powered by GitBook
On this page
  • Architecturing & training
  • Ablations

Was this helpful?

  1. I Learning to Collaborate
  2. 3. Counterfactual Multi-Agent Policy Gradients
  3. 3.4 Methods

3.4.2.2 COMA Algorithm

Previous3.4.2.1 baseline lemmaNext3.5 Results

Last updated 4 years ago

Was this helpful?

에서는 actor critic이 local maximum에 수렴함을 보였는데, 다음의 조건들을 만족합니다.

  1. policy π\piπ는 미분 가능 해야합니다.

  2. QQQ와 π\piπ는 충분히 천천히 업데이트되어야하며 특히 π\piπ가 QQQ보다 더 천천히 업데이트 되어야 합니다.

  3. QQQ와 π\piπ사이의 compatible한 조건이 있어야합니다.

Architecturing & training

Ablations

여기선 3가지 키포인트들에 대해 실험하였습니다. 첫째로, critic의 centralized에 대해 IAC-Q와 IAC-V를 통해 비교했습니다. 둘째로, V보다 Q를 배우는 것에 대해 실험했습니다. central-V는 full state를 통해 학습하지만, V를 학습합니다. 그리고 TD erorr를 통해 advantage를 추정하여 agent를 update합니다. 셋째로, central-QV는 Q와V를 동시에 배우고 advantage를 바로 Q-V를 통해 얻습니다.

actor는 128개의 unit을 가진 GRU를 통해 만들어 졌고, GRU앞뒤로 fully connected layer가 연결되어 있습니다. IAC critic은 actor network last layer에 달린 last layer를 사용합니다. action은 마지막 layer에서 softmax를 통해 probability형식으로 나오게 됩니다. 여기에 lower bound ϵ\epsilonϵ을 주었습니다. critic은 ReLU layer와 fully connected layer로 이루어져있으며, 여기서 나오는 hyperparameter들은 마린 5대5 시나리오에서 튜닝된뒤 다른맵에도 적용되었습니다. λ \lambda λ는 0.8로 조정하였습니다.

Konda의 연구