arXiv:2607.04470cs.LGcs.AI2026-07

动态使用LLM生成奖励会破坏多智能体强化学习稳定性,本文提出两种稳定方法。

Regime-Conditional Stabilisation of LLM-Augmented Cooperative Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning

论文配图:Regime-Conditional Stabilisation of LLM-Augmented Cooperative Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning
图 1 · 摘自论文原文
  • 用分阶段冻结和指数平滑控制LLM奖励权重变化,保持信号平稳
  • 在不同任务场景下,稳定后成功率最高提升12.3个百分点(显著提升)
  • 适合研究多智能体系统中人类指令与机器学习融合的开发者参考

大型语言模型(LLMs)为将人类目标转化为合作多智能体强化学习(MARL)的奖励信号提供了自然接口,但其训练过程中的动态整合机制尚不明确。我们发现,在离策略MARL中动态更新LLM生成的奖励权重会违反基于潜在函数的奖励塑造(PBRS)的平稳性假设,并污染经验回放缓冲区,其中存储的转移样本仍使用过时的塑造权重计算。这种问题表现为依赖于训练阶段的失败,严重程度取决于原始基线的表现水平。为此,我们提出两种稳定策略:分阶段冻结调度以保证训练阶段内的严格平稳性,以及指数移动平均(EMA)平滑以限制每回合权重漂移。在三个合作环境中对QMIX进行评估,并辅以探索性VDN扩展,构建了三类任务范式。在增强型任务(Simple Spread)中,基线成功率74.4%,采用EMA后成功率达86.7%(+12.3个百分点,p<0.01),而直接动态更新导致崩溃至15.2%;在关键型任务(Level-Based Foraging)中,基线几乎失效(0.1%),任何塑造均能解锁任务(EMA下达95.9%);在补充型任务(SMAC 3m)中,基线接近饱和(98.8%),稳定塑造维持99.9%性能,而未稳定塑造增加方差但无增益。结果表明,奖励信号平稳性是必要设计约束,且任务所处范式可有效预测动态LLM塑造是否有益。

原文摘要 · Abstract (English)

Large Language Models (LLMs) offer a natural interface for translating human objectives into reward signals for cooperative multi-agent reinforcement learning (MARL), yet the training-time dynamics of this integration remain poorly understood. We show that dynamically updating LLM-generated reward weights during off-policy MARL violates the stationarity assumption of Potential-Based Reward Shaping (PBRS) and contaminates the experience replay buffer, whose stored transitions carry reward labels computed under stale shaping weights. We characterise the result as a regime-dependent failure whose severity depends on how competent the unshaped baseline already is. To control it we propose two stabilisation strategies: a Phase-Based Freeze Schedule that enforces strict stationarity within training phases, and Exponential Moving Average (EMA) smoothing that bounds per-episode weight drift. We evaluate across three cooperative environments and five random seeds with QMIX, complemented by an exploratory VDN extension, yielding a three-regime taxonomy. In the augmentative regime (Simple Spread), where the baseline is functional (74.4 %), EMA significantly improves success to 86.7 % ($+12.3$ pp, $p<0.01$) while naive dynamic updates collapse it to 15.2 %. In the essential regime (Level-Based Foraging), where the baseline is broken (0.1 %), any shaping unlocks the task (95.9 % under EMA). In the supplementary regime (SMAC 3m), where the baseline is near-saturated (98.8 %), stabilised shaping preserves performance (99.9 %) while unstabilised shaping adds variance without gain. These findings establish reward-signal stationarity as a necessary design constraint and indicate that regime placement is a practical predictor of whether dynamic LLM shaping helps or harms.

多智能体大模型强化学习奖励设计

Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品;中文卡片由大模型生成,请以原文为准。