Get It in Writing: Formal Contracts Mitigate Social Dilemmas in Multi-Agent RL

Multi-agent reinforcement learning (MARL) is a powerful tool for training automated systems acting independently in a common environment. However, it can lead to sub-optimal behavior when individual incentives and group incentives diverge. Humans are remarkably capable at solving these social dilemmas. It is an open problem in MARL to replicate such cooperative behaviors in selfish agents. In this work, we draw upon the idea of formal contracting from economics to overcome diverging incentives between agents in MARL. We propose an augmentation to a Markov game where agents voluntarily agree to binding state-dependent transfers of reward, under pre-specified conditions. Our contributions are theoretical and empirical. First, we show that this augmentation makes all subgame-perfect equilibria of all fully observed Markov games exhibit socially optimal behavior, given a sufficiently rich space of contracts. Next, we complement our game-theoretic analysis by showing that state-of-the-art RL algorithms learn socially optimal policies given our augmentation. Our experiments include classic static dilemmas like Stag Hunt, Prisoner's Dilemma and a public goods game, as well as dynamic interactions that simulate traffic, pollution management and common pool resource management.Comment: 12 pages, 8 figures, AAMAS 202

Stochastic Market Games

Some of the most relevant future applications of multi-agent systems like autonomous driving or factories as a service display mixed-motive scenarios, where agents might have conflicting goals. In these settings agents are likely to learn undesirable outcomes in terms of cooperation under independent learning, such as overly greedy behavior. Motivated from real world societies, in this work we propose to utilize market forces to provide incentives for agents to become cooperative. As demonstrated in an iterated version of the Prisoner's Dilemma, the proposed market formulation can change the dynamics of the game to consistently learn cooperative policies. Further we evaluate our approach in spatially and temporally extended settings for varying numbers of agents. We empirically find that the presence of markets can improve both the overall result and agent individual returns via their trading activities.Comment: IJCAI-2

Melting Pot 2.0

Multi-agent artificial intelligence research promises a path to develop intelligent technologies that are more human-like and more human-compatible than those produced by "solipsistic" approaches, which do not consider interactions between agents. Melting Pot is a research tool developed to facilitate work on multi-agent artificial intelligence, and provides an evaluation protocol that measures generalization to novel social partners in a set of canonical test scenarios. Each scenario pairs a physical environment (a "substrate") with a reference set of co-players (a "background population"), to create a social situation with substantial interdependence between the individuals involved. For instance, some scenarios were inspired by institutional-economics-based accounts of natural resource management and public-good-provision dilemmas. Others were inspired by considerations from evolutionary biology, game theory, and artificial life. Melting Pot aims to cover a maximally diverse set of interdependencies and incentives. It includes the commonly-studied extreme cases of perfectly-competitive (zero-sum) motivations and perfectly-cooperative (shared-reward) motivations, but does not stop with them. As in real-life, a clear majority of scenarios in Melting Pot have mixed incentives. They are neither purely competitive nor purely cooperative and thus demand successful agents be able to navigate the resulting ambiguity. Here we describe Melting Pot 2.0, which revises and expands on Melting Pot. We also introduce support for scenarios with asymmetric roles, and explain how to integrate them into the evaluation protocol. This report also contains: (1) details of all substrates and scenarios; (2) a complete description of all baseline algorithms and results. Our intention is for it to serve as a reference for researchers using Melting Pot 2.0.Comment: 59 pages, 54 figures. arXiv admin note: text overlap with arXiv:2107.0685

Decentralized scheduling through an adaptive, trading-based multi-agent system

In multi-agent reinforcement learning systems, the actions of one agent can have a negative impact on the rewards of other agents. One way to combat this problem is to let agents trade their rewards amongst each other. Motivated by this, this work applies a trading approach to a simulated scheduling environment, where the agents are responsible for the assignment of incoming jobs to compute cores. In this environment, reinforcement learning agents learn to trade successfully. The agents can trade the usage right of computational cores to process high-priority, high-reward jobs faster than low-priority, low-reward jobs. However, due to combinatorial effects, the action and observation spaces of a simple reinforcement learning agent in this environment scale exponentially with key parameters of the problem size. However, the exponential scaling behavior can be transformed into a linear one if the agent is split into several independent sub-units. We further improve this distributed architecture using agent-internal parameter sharing. Moreover, it can be extended to set the exchange prices autonomously. We show that in our scheduling environment, the advantages of a distributed agent architecture clearly outweigh more aggregated approaches. We demonstrate that the distributed agent architecture becomes even more performant using agent-internal parameter sharing. Finally, we investigate how two different reward functions affect autonomous pricing and the corresponding scheduling.Comment: Accepted at ABMHuB 2022 worksho

Learning Adaptable Risk-Sensitive Policies to Coordinate in Multi-Agent General-Sum Games

In general-sum games, the interaction of self-interested learning agents commonly leads to socially worse outcomes, such as defect-defect in the iterated stag hunt (ISH). Previous works address this challenge by sharing rewards or shaping their opponents' learning process, which require too strong assumptions. In this paper, we demonstrate that agents trained to optimize expected returns are more likely to choose a safe action that leads to guaranteed but lower rewards. However, there typically exists a risky action that leads to higher rewards in the long run only if agents cooperate, e.g., cooperate-cooperate in ISH. To overcome this, we propose using action value distribution to characterize the decision's risk and corresponding potential payoffs. Specifically, we present Adaptable Risk-Sensitive Policy (ARSP). ARSP learns the distributions over agent's return and estimates a dynamic risk-seeking bonus to discover risky coordination strategies. Furthermore, to avoid overfitting training opponents, ARSP learns an auxiliary opponent modeling task to infer opponents' types and dynamically alter corresponding strategies during execution. Empirically, agents trained via ARSP can achieve stable coordination during training without accessing opponent's rewards or learning process, and can adapt to non-cooperative opponents during execution. To the best of our knowledge, it is the first method to learn coordination strategies between agents both in iterated prisoner's dilemma (IPD) and iterated stag hunt (ISH) without shaping opponents or rewards, and can adapt to opponents with distinct strategies during execution. Furthermore, we show that ARSP can be scaled to high-dimensional settings.Comment: arXiv admin note: substantial text overlap with arXiv:2205.1585

Resolving social dilemmas with minimal reward transfer

Multi-agent cooperation is an important topic, and is particularly challenging in mixed-motive situations where it does not pay to be nice to others. Consequently, self-interested agents often avoid collective behaviour, resulting in suboptimal outcomes for the group. In response, in this paper we introduce a metric to quantify the disparity between what is rational for individual agents and what is rational for the group, which we call the general self-interest level. This metric represents the maximum proportion of individual rewards that all agents can retain while ensuring that achieving social welfare optimum becomes a dominant strategy. By aligning the individual and group incentives, rational agents acting to maximise their own reward will simultaneously maximise the collective reward. As agents transfer their rewards to motivate others to consider their welfare, we diverge from traditional concepts of altruism or prosocial behaviours. The general self-interest level is a property of a game that is useful for assessing the propensity of players to cooperate and understanding how features of a game impact this. We illustrate the effectiveness of our method on several novel games representations of social dilemmas with arbitrary numbers of players.Comment: 34 pages, 13 tables, submitted to the Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems: Special Issue on Citizen-Centric AI System

Developing, Evaluating and Scaling Learning Agents in Multi-Agent Environments

The Game Theory & Multi-Agent team at DeepMind studies several aspects of multi-agent learning ranging from computing approximations to fundamental concepts in game theory to simulating social dilemmas in rich spatial environments and training 3-d humanoids in difficult team coordination tasks. A signature aim of our group is to use the resources and expertise made available to us at DeepMind in deep reinforcement learning to explore multi-agent systems in complex environments and use these benchmarks to advance our understanding. Here, we summarise the recent work of our team and present a taxonomy that we feel highlights many important open challenges in multi-agent research.Comment: Published in AI Communications 202