PreprintCited by 69Reinforcement Learning in RoboticsAdvanced Bandit Algorithms ResearchArtificial Intelligence in Games

Influence-Based Multi-Agent Exploration

Open access
Wang, Tonghan, Wang, Jianhao, Wu, Yi, Zhang, Chongjie·2019·arXiv

Abstract

Intrinsically motivated reinforcement learning aims to address the exploration challenge for sparse-reward tasks. However, the study of exploration methods in transition-dependent multi-agent settings is largely absent from the literature. We aim to take a step towards solving this problem. We present two exploration methods: exploration via information-theoretic influence (EITI) and exploration via decision-theoretic influence (EDTI), by exploiting the role of interaction in coordinated behaviors of agents. EITI uses mutual information to capture influence transition dynamics. EDTI uses a novel intrinsic reward, called Value of Interaction (VoI), to characterize and quantify the influence of one agent's behavior on expected returns of other agents. By optimizing EITI or EDTI objective as a regularizer, agents are encouraged to coordinate their exploration and learn policies to optimize team performance. We show how to optimize these regularizers so that they can be easily integrated with policy gradient reinforcement learning. The resulting update rule draws a connection between coordinated exploration and intrinsic reward distribution. Finally, we empirically demonstrate the significant strength of our method in a variety of multi-agent scenarios.

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.1910.05512

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Existing memory management methods that depend on vector retrieval and hierarchical storage are prone to noise accumulation, uncontrolled memory expansion, and limited generalization across domains.

    “Existing memory management methods typically depend on vector retrieval and hierarchical storage, yet they are prone to noise accumulation, uncontrolled memory expansion, and limited generalization across domains.”

    From SEDM: Scalable Self-Evolving Distributed Memory for Agents (2025) · cites this paper as [56]

  • In complex collaborative multi-agent tasks, the effectiveness of vector retrieval and hierarchical memory diminishes because the underlying assumptions of stability and linear growth do not hold.

    “However, in complex collaborative multi-agent tasks, their effectiveness diminishes, as the underlying assumptions of stability and linear growth do not hold [56].”

    From SEDM: Scalable Self-Evolving Distributed Memory for Agents (2025) · cites this paper as [56]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wang, T., Wang, J., Wu, Y., & Zhang, C.
Affiliations
Tsinghua University (CN)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2019
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2980234052
Cited by
69
References
5
Citations by year
2025: 4 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 9
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Reinforcement Learning in Robotics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Advanced Bandit Algorithms Research
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Artificial Intelligence in Games
Keywords
multi-agent exploration, intrinsic motivation, sparse rewards, mutual information, intrinsic rewards, policy gradient, multi-agent coordination, team performance

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review