Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T02:07:52.171Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Context-sensitive reward shaping for sparse interaction multi-agent systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2016

Yann-Michaël de Hauwere ,
Sam Devlin ,
Daniel Kudenko  and
Ann Nowé
Yann-Michaël de Hauwere
Affiliation:
Computational Modeling Lab, Vrije Universiteit Brussel Pleinlaan 2, 1050 Brussels, Belgium e-mail: [email protected], [email protected]
Sam Devlin
Affiliation:
Department of Computer Science, University of York Heslington, York, YO10 5DD, UK e-mail: [email protected], [email protected]
Daniel Kudenko
Affiliation:
Department of Computer Science, University of York Heslington, York, YO10 5DD, UK e-mail: [email protected], [email protected]
Ann Nowé
Affiliation:
Computational Modeling Lab, Vrije Universiteit Brussel Pleinlaan 2, 1050 Brussels, Belgium e-mail: [email protected], [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Potential-based reward shaping is a commonly used approach in reinforcement learning to direct exploration based on prior knowledge. Both in single and multi-agent settings this technique speeds up learning without losing any theoretical convergence guarantees. However, if speed ups through reward shaping are to be achieved in multi-agent environments, a different shaping signal should be used for each context in which agents have a different subgoal or when agents are involved in a different interaction situation.

This paper describes the use of context-aware potential functions in a multi-agent system in which the interactions between agents are sparse. This means that, unknown to the agents a priori, the interactions between the agents only occur sporadically in certain regions of the state space. During these interactions, agents need to coordinate in order to reach the global optimal solution.

We demonstrate how different reward shaping functions can be used on top of Future Coordinating Q-learning (FCQ-learning); an algorithm capable of automatically detecting when agents should take each other into consideration. Using FCQ-learning, coordination problems can even be anticipated before the actual problems occur, allowing the problems to be solved timely. We evaluate our approach on a range of gridworld problems, as well as a simulation of air traffic control.

Type
Articles
Information
The Knowledge Engineering Review , Volume 31 , Issue 1: Adaptive Learning Agents , January 2016 , pp. 59 - 76
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press, 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Boutilier, C. 1996. Planning, learning and coordination in multiagent decision processes. In Proceedings of the 6th Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Rationality and Knowledge, 195–210.Google Scholar
Claus, C. & Boutilier, C. 1998. The dynamics of reinforcement learning in cooperative multiagent systems. In Proceedings of the 15th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 746–752. AAAI Press.Google Scholar
De Hauwere, Y.-M., Vrancx, P. & Nowé, A. 2010. Learning multi-agent state space representations. In The 9th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, 715–722.Google Scholar
De Hauwere, Y.-M., Vrancx, P. & Nowé, A. 2011a. Adaptive state representations for multi-agent reinforcement learning. In Proceedings of the 3th International Conference on Agents and Artificial Intelligence, 181–189.Google Scholar
De Hauwere, Y.-M., Vrancx, P. & Nowé, A. 2011b. Solving delayed coordination problems in MAS (extended abstract). In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS), 1115–1116.Google Scholar
De Hauwere, Y.-M., Vrancx, P. & Nowé, A. 2011c. Solving sparse delayed coordination problems in multi-agent reinforcement learning. In Adaptive Agents and Multi-Agent Systems V, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence Volume 7113, 45–52. Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Devlin, S. & Kudenko, D. 2011. Theoretical considerations of potential-based reward shaping for multiagent systems. In The 10th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems—Volume 1, 225–232.Google Scholar
Devlin, S. & Kudenko, D. (In Press), Plan-based reward shaping for multi-agent reinforcement learning. Knowledge Engineering Review.Google Scholar
Greenwald, A. & Hall, K. 2003. Correlated-Q learning. In AAAI Spring Symposium, 242–249. AAAI Press.Google Scholar
Grzes, M. & Kudenko, D. 2008. Plan-based reward shaping for reinforcement learning. In 4th International IEEE Conference on Intelligent Systems, 2008. IS’08, 2, 10–22–10–29.Google Scholar
Hu, J. & Wellman, M. 2003. Nash Q-learning for general-sum stochastic games. Journal of Machine Learning Research 4, 1039–1069.Google Scholar
Kok, J., ’t Hoen, P., Bakker, B. & Vlassis, N. 2005. Utile coordination: learning interdependencies among cooperative agents. In Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Computational Intelligence and Games (CIG’05), 29–36.Google Scholar
Melo, F. & Veloso, M. 2009. Learning of coordination: exploiting sparse interactions in multiagent systems. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 773–780.Google Scholar
Melo, F. & Veloso, M. 2010. Local Multiagent Coordination in Decentralised MDPs with Sparse Interactions. Technical report CMU-CS-10-133, School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University.Google Scholar
Ng, A. Y., Harada, D. & Russell, S. 1999. Policy invariance under reward transformations: theory and application to reward shaping. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Machine Learning, 278–287. Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
Randløv, J. & Alstrøm, P. 1998. Learning to drive a bicycle using reinforcement learning and shaping. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML’98, 463–471. Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
Tsitsiklis, J. 1994. Asynchronous stochastic approximation and Q-learning. Journal of Machine Learning 16(3), 185–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tumer, K. & Khani, N. 2009. Learning from actions not taken in multiagent systems. Advances in Complex Systems 12(4–5), 455–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vrancx, P., Verbeeck, K. & Nowé, A. 2008. Decentralized learning in Markov games. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics (Part B: Cybernetics) 38(4), 976–981.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Watkins, C. 1989. Learning from Delayed Rewards. PhD thesis, University of Cambridge.Google Scholar