Causal Knowledge Transfer for Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning in Dynamic Environments

Christian Medeiros Adriano; Holger Giese; Kathrin Korte; Sona Ghahremani

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 31 references

Causal Knowledge Transfer for Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning in Dynamic Environments

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Zero-shot recovery macros close half the retraining gap

desk verdict A plausibly novel macro-as-causal-intervention transfer idea that its own RQ4 undermines: the lookup table ignores goals, so the heterogeneous-goal transfer claim is unsupported as stated. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.13846 v1 pith:OUJK3S6W submitted 2025-07-18 cs.AI

Kathrin Korte , Christian Medeiros Adriano , Sona Ghahremani , Holger Giese This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.AI

keywords causalknowledgetransfermulti-agentreinforcementlearningzero-shotrecoveryactionmacroheterogeneousgoalsdynamicenvironmentseffectestimationgrid-worldnavigation

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to show that a reinforcement learning agent can share knowledge with another agent not through policies or value functions, but through compact causal representations of how to recover from collisions. Each collision is modeled as a causal intervention, and the sequence of actions that gets the agent past the obstacle, called a recovery macro, is estimated offline and stored in a lookup table keyed by local collision context. At run time, a learner agent with a different goal queries the table and applies the macro as an atomic action, with no retraining and no update to the teacher model. The reported result is that heterogeneous-goal learners close about half of the gap between random exploration and a fully retrained policy, with the benefit depending on both barrier complexity and goal similarity. If this holds, knowledge transfer in multi-agent systems can become more sample-efficient and interpretable than policy-copying approaches.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is the recovery action (RA) macro: a sequence of actions recorded from just after a collision until the next collision or the goal, stored in a context-indexed lookup model. The framework models each macro application as an intervention on a causal model of the environment, a directed acyclic graph, and uses the CausalForestDML estimator with adjustment for confounders such as collision state, attempted movement direction, and prior path length to select the macro minimizing expected remaining path length. The optimal-to-final path-length ratio (OFPR) serves as the common currency that makes transfer across different start-end goals comparable.

What would settle it

Train a teacher and learner in the same grid-world protocol but add a hidden agent-specific bias, such as a per-agent turn cost or wind drift that affects both the recorded recovery paths and their outcomes while being omitted from the logged context; if the transferred learner's OFPR no longer closes roughly half the gap to full retraining, the causal sufficiency assumption is load-bearing.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that obstacle collisions can be repurposed as localized causal experiments. A teacher agent's exploratory recovery from a collision yields a dataset of context, action, and outcome triples; a doubly-robust causal forest estimator then estimates each recovery macro's effect on expected remaining path length, and the best macro per collision context is written into a lookup model. Treating the macro as an intervention on a causal model of the environment lets the framework rank macros by their actual downstream effect on cumulative reward rather than by immediate outcome. A learner agent, pursuing a possibly different goal, can then execute the transferred macro zero-shot at a collision and recover a substantial part of the performance lost to random exploration. The paper's quantitative claim is expressed with the optimal-to-final path-length ratio (OFPR) and a delta metric that isolates the teacher's net contribution.

Load-bearing premise

The whole transfer pipeline assumes causal sufficiency: no hidden confounder jointly influences the collision context, the recovery actions tried, and the resulting path length; if such a confounder exists, the lookup table can rank macros wrongly and the zero-shot gain shrinks or reverses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the central claim is right, agents can adapt to a changing obstacle layout by importing a compact lookup table instead of retraining, with gains attributable purely to the transferred causal knowledge.
Zero-shot transfer will not help uniformly: in the most heterogeneous goal scenario (different starts and different ends) the transferred macro can hurt, so transfer success depends on goal similarity and barrier difficulty.
The framework turns each collision into a reusable data point, so the cost of adapting to a new environment scales with the number of distinct collision contexts rather than with the size of the joint state-action space.
Because the teacher model is frozen during transfer, the measured delta is an upper bound on what pure causal-knowledge transfer alone can provide in these grid-world scenarios.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Beyond the paper: the same lookup-macro transfer could be tested in continuous or partially observable domains where collisions are localized and recovery actions compose, for example mobile robot navigation with dynamic obstacles, provided the causal sufficiency assumption is rechecked.
Beyond the paper: the paper's own sensitivity to goal heterogeneity suggests a curriculum rule, namely that transfer sources should be ordered by structural path similarity to the learner's goal, a criterion the paper leaves for future work.
Beyond the paper: a direct falsification experiment would inject a hidden confounder, such as an agent-specific motor bias, and check whether the zero-shot gain collapses, since the paper assumes ignorability rather than testing it.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Dear colleague,

The honest bottom line: this is a real but narrow contribution with one load-bearing flaw in its causal setup. The new thing is the packaging: treating a collision as an intervention, discovering recovery macros from logged teacher trajectories, estimating their effects with CausalForestDML, and transferring them as a zero-shot lookup. That combination is genuinely absent from the cited MARL transfer literature, and the Table I gap (discrete tabular, heterogeneous goals, explicit causal world model) is fair. The paper also ships code and uses external baselines (random, full retraining) plus an optimal-path metric, so the reported gains are not constructed by the fitting procedure.

What it does well: the OFPR and ΔCK metrics are clear, the teacher–learner isolation is a good design choice, and Section VI-B is honest about causal sufficiency. The RQ2/RQ3 'partially yes' answers are appropriately hedged.

The soft spots are real. No error bars, seed counts, exact numerical values, or significance tests; on an 11x11 grid with four barriers, that leaves the central 'half the gap' claim as a visual impression. There is no ablation isolating the causal estimator from the rest of the pipeline, and no comparison against a prior transfer method. These are fixable, but they need fixing.

The deeper problem is the one the stress test caught. The causal adjustment set (Section IV-B) is collision state, attempted direction, and prior path length. The lookup context is the same. The agent's goal is not in either. Yet the claim is transfer across heterogeneous goals. For a given collision, the best recovery macro depends on where the agent is heading; without goal as a covariate, CausalForestDML estimates a goal-marginal average effect. A learner with a different goal is then handed a macro that encodes no goal information. This is an effect-modifier misspecification, not just a missing confounder. RQ4 shows exactly the symptom: the most heterogeneous goal pair has negative ΔCK. The authors even note their causal model 'could not capture' the interaction. The abstract's 'about half the gap' is therefore not supported by the mechanism as stated; it may reflect obstacle-avoidance heuristics rather than goal-specific causal transfer.

The citation pattern is fine; the self-citations are contextual and not a red flag.

Verdict: worth a serious referee, but the referee should require the goal-in-context fix and a proper causal ablation. I would not cite it in current form, but for people working on causal MARL transfer it is a useful reading-group discussion piece.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a causal knowledge transfer framework for multi-agent reinforcement learning in a grid-world with obstacles. Agents are pre-trained in an obstacle-free environment; when obstacles are introduced, collisions are treated as causal interventions, and the sequence of actions that resolves a collision (a recovery macro) is logged together with context and outcome. A CausalForestDML estimator is fit offline to estimate the expected residual path length for each macro, and the results are stored in a context-indexed lookup table. A learner agent, upon collision, queries this table and executes the recommended macro zero-shot, without retraining. The evaluation considers four start/end configurations and three obstacle layouts, comparing the causal-model-augmented agent against random exploration and full retraining. The paper reports that agents with heterogeneous goals bridge about half of the gap between random exploration and full retraining, and that the benefit of transfer depends on the interplay between obstacle complexity and goal similarity.

Significance. If validated, the central idea of transferring compact causal recovery knowledge rather than policies or value functions would be a useful and interpretable addition to MARL transfer methods. The evaluation design has strengths: it compares transferred agents against external baselines (random exploration and full retraining) and an optimal-path metric, so the reported gains are not constructed by the fitting objective; the code is publicly linked; and the paper explicitly acknowledges the causal sufficiency assumption. However, the current evidence is not sufficient to establish the headline quantitative claim: statistical detail is missing, the goal is omitted from the causal context despite being the dimension across which transfer is claimed, and the causal estimator is underspecified. The contribution is therefore significant but conditional on substantial revision.

major comments (4)

[Section V-B, Figure 2, Take-aways] The headline claim that agents with heterogeneous goals 'closed about half the gap between random exploration and a fully retrained policy' is not supported by the reported data. No numeric OFPR values, error bars, seed counts, or significance tests are given; Figure 2 appears to plot only point estimates or central tendencies. Please report per-condition means and standard deviations or confidence intervals, the number of independent runs, and an explicit definition of the 'gap' (for example, (OFPR(pi_CK) - OFPR(Rand))/(OFPR(P*) - OFPR(Rand))). Without this, the magnitude claim in the abstract cannot be verified.
[Section IV-B and Section V-A] The goal is omitted from both the lookup context and the covariate set of CausalForestDML, although transfer is explicitly across heterogeneous goals. The recovery macro's effect on remaining path length is a function of the agent's destination; if the teacher and learner pursue different goals, the estimator does not condition on the learner's goal and instead returns an estimate identified under the teacher's goal, implicitly assuming effect invariance. This misspecification is consistent with the negative delta-CK reported for the most heterogeneous goal pair in RQ4. Please either include the goal (or a sufficient statistic of the remaining path) in the context and adjustment set, or provide an empirical check that macro rankings are invariant across goals in this environment.
[Section IV-B] The causal estimation setup is underspecified. The text says CausalForestDML is used 'to estimate the expected outcome for each RA macro,' but it does not define the treatment variable, the outcome variable, the estimand, or how variable-length macro sequences are encoded for a doubly robust forest estimator. This is central to the causal contribution and to reproducibility. Please state the exact estimation setup, including the encoding of macros, the outcome definition (post-collision path length, total episode reward, or something else), the base learners, and the rule by which the lookup table selects a macro from the estimated effects.
[Section V-B, RQ3 and RQ4] The conclusions for RQ3 and RQ4 ('partially yes' and 'yes') are based on visual inspection of Figure 2(b) without any statistical test for the interaction between barrier complexity and goal heterogeneity. With no error bars and no significance tests, the claim that delta-CK is sensitive to these factors is not established. Please provide an appropriate quantitative analysis, such as a regression with interaction terms, paired comparisons across conditions, or at least per-condition distributions of delta-CK.

minor comments (6)

[Section IV-A] The path notation (chi_i -> Psi^tau_i)^k_{i=1} is not standard and should be replaced by a sequence or set notation; additionally, the reward decomposition R = rho + sum tau_i should clarify whether rho includes all pre-collision segments, since the formalization defines multiple pre-collision paths.
[Section V-A] The 'Barriers' paragraph is incomplete: the sentence 'A curriculum of obstacle configurations allows varying the difficulty of goals..., i.e., introducing' is not finished. Please restructure it as a complete sentence or list.
[Algorithm 1] The number of recovery-discovery episodes NRA and the exploration policy used during recovery action discovery are not specified. These parameters are necessary to interpret the logged data and to reproduce the causal estimates.
[Section IV-C] The notation for delta-CK is confusing: T_CK is defined as the OFPR of the learner after importing the teacher's causal model, but the subscript T suggests the teacher. Please rename to something like L'_CK to avoid ambiguity.
[Figure 2] The caption references 'blue and red lines,' but the figure as rendered appears to rely on color to distinguish conditions. Please add a legend that is readable in grayscale and label axes and subfigures explicitly.
[Section I and throughout] There are several typos and formatting inconsistencies, including 'knwoledge' in the introduction and the inline math for 'Lagent' and 'P *'. A careful proofreading pass is needed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: transfer gains are measured against external baselines and a held-out learner, not built into the fitting procedure.

full rationale

The paper's derivation is self-contained. In Section IV-B, recovery macros are logged from teacher trajectories (Algorithm 1) and a CausalForestDML estimator adjusts for collision state, attempted movement direction, and prior path length to score each macro by expected residual path length. The lookup table is then transferred to a learner in Section IV-C, with the paper explicitly stating 'the teacher model is not updated with the learner experiences,' so the learner's zero-shot performance is a genuine holdout outcome rather than a refit of the training objective. The headline result, that heterogeneous-goal agents 'bridge about half of the gap between random exploration and a fully retrained policy,' is defined relative to the external Rand and P* baselines and the optimal-path OFPR metric; it is not implied by the macro-selection rule. The only self-citations (Refs. [2] and [3]) motivate causal modeling in the introduction and do not carry the estimator, lookup construction, or evaluation. The Section VI-B admission of causal sufficiency/ignorability is an acknowledged correctness threat, and RQ2's note that some goal heterogeneity 'our causal modeling could not capture' indicates the experimental outcome was not forced by construction. The omission of goal identity from the lookup context is a model-specification limitation that could explain negative transfer, but it is not a circular reduction because the reported gain is an empirically measured quantity, not an input to the estimator.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The formalization is largely bookkeeping: total reward is a sum of pre- and post-collision rewards, and OFPR compares actual path length to an optimal path. The causal content rests on the untested assumptions above; free parameters are limited to the causal forest hyperparameters and the unspecified NRA. No new physical entities are introduced; recovery macros are data-derived action sequences.

free parameters (2)

Number of recovery-discovery episodes (NRA)
Algorithm 1 uses NRA episodes but the paper gives no value; the quality of the learned lookup table depends on this quantity.
CausalForestDML hyperparameters = nestimators=200, minsamples_leaf=10, alpha=1.0, cv=3, maxiter=500
Chosen by hand in Section IV-B footnote; no sensitivity analysis is reported, so the transfer effect is conditional on these settings.

assumptions (4)

standard math The RL environment is a finite MDP with known transition and reward structure.
Used in Section II as the formal RL setting; supports Q-learning baselines and path-length based rewards.
domain assumption Pearl's causal assumptions of causal sufficiency, faithfulness, and the causal Markov condition hold in the grid-world.
Section II and Section VI-B; if a hidden confounder exists, CausalForestDML effect estimates may be biased.
ad hoc to paper Each collision can be treated as an intervention and recovery actions as causal effects under the fitted model.
Section IV-A; this interpretive mapping is the paper's central framing rather than a derived result.
domain assumption Macros learned by a teacher generalize to a learner with a different goal in the same obstacle layout.
Section IV-C; zero-shot transfer has no value if the optimal recovery differs across goals.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Causal Knowledge Transfer for Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning in Dynamic Environments." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OUJK3S6W

@misc{pith2026250713846,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Causal Knowledge Transfer for Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning in Dynamic Environments},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OUJK3S6W}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.13846}
}

read the original abstract

[Context] Multi-agent reinforcement learning (MARL) has achieved notable success in environments where agents must learn coordinated behaviors. However, transferring knowledge across agents remains challenging in non-stationary environments with changing goals. [Problem] Traditional knowledge transfer methods in MARL struggle to generalize, and agents often require costly retraining to adapt. [Approach] This paper introduces a causal knowledge transfer framework that enables RL agents to learn and share compact causal representations of paths within a non-stationary environment. As the environment changes (new obstacles), agents' collisions require adaptive recovery strategies. We model each collision as a causal intervention instantiated as a sequence of recovery actions (a macro) whose effect corresponds to a causal knowledge of how to circumvent the obstacle while increasing the chances of achieving the agent's goal (maximizing cumulative reward). This recovery action macro is transferred online from a second agent and is applied in a zero-shot fashion, i.e., without retraining, just by querying a lookup model with local context information (collisions). [Results] Our findings reveal two key insights: (1) agents with heterogeneous goals were able to bridge about half of the gap between random exploration and a fully retrained policy when adapting to new environments, and (2) the impact of causal knowledge transfer depends on the interplay between environment complexity and agents' heterogeneous goals.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.13846 by the authors.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

[1]

C. Adami. The elements of intelligence. Artificial Life, 29(3):293–307, 2023

work page 2023
[2]

C. M. Adriano, S. Ghahremani, and H. Giese. Principled transfer learning for autonomic systems: A neuro-symbolic vision. In ACSOS-C, pages 79–84. IEEE, 2024

work page 2024
[3]

C. M. Adriano, S. Ghahremani, F. Kaiser, and H. Giese. Neuro-symbolic causal reasoning for cautious self-adaptation under distribution shifts. In ACSOS, page to appear, 2025

work page 2025
[4]

Athey and S

S. Athey and S. Wager. Estimating treatment effects with causal forests: An application. Observational studies, 5(2):37–51, 2019

work page 2019
[5]

Bloembergen, K

D. Bloembergen, K. Tuyls, D. Hennes, and M. Kaisers. Evolutionary dynamics of multi-agent learning: A survey. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 53:659–697, 2015

work page 2015
[6]

Briglia, M

G. Briglia, M. Lippi, S. Mariani, and F. Zambonelli. Improving reinforcement learning-based autonomous agents with causal models. In International Conference on Principles and Practice of Multi-Agent Systems, pages 267–283. Springer, 2024

work page 2024
[7]

Castagna and I

A. Castagna and I. Dusparic. Multi-agent transfer learning in reinforce- ment learning-based ride-sharing systems. 2021

work page 2021
[8]

Dagner, M

T. Dagner, M. Kr ¨ahsch¨utz, and R. Parzeller. Transfer learning for multi- agent pathfinding in discrete 3D environments. In ICIEA, pages 1–6, 2024

work page 2024

Show all 31 references

[9]

Z. Deng, J. Jiang, G. Long, and C. Zhang. Causal reinforcement learning: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.01452 , 2023

2023 arXiv
[10]

H. Ge, D. Gao, L. Sun, Y . Hou, C. Yu, Y . Wang, and G. Tan. Multi-agent transfer reinforcement learning with multi-view encoder for adaptive traffic signal control. IEEE T-ITS, 23(8):12572–12587, 2022

2022
[11]

Guresti and N

B. Guresti and N. K. Ure. Evaluating generalization and transfer capacity of multi-agent reinforcement learning across variable number of agents. CoRR, abs/2111.14177, 2021

2021 arXiv
[12]

Kumaran, D

D. Kumaran, D. Hassabis, and J. L. McClelland. What learning systems do intelligent agents need? complementary learning systems theory updated. Trends in cognitive sciences , 20(7):512–534, 2016

2016
[13]

W. Liu, L. Dong, D. Niu, and C. Sun. Efficient exploration for multi-agent reinforcement learning via transferable successor features. volume 9, pages 1673–1686, 2022

2022
[14]

Mutti, R

M. Mutti, R. De Santi, E. Rossi, J. F. Calderon, M. Bronstein, and M. Restelli. Provably efficient causal model-based reinforcement learn- ing for systematic generalization. In AAAI, volume 37, pages 9251–9259, 2023

2023
[15]

A. S. Nipu, S. Liu, and A. Harris. Enabling multi-agent transfer reinforcement learning via scenario independent representation. In IEEE CoG, pages 1–8, 2023

2023
[16]

J. Pearl. Causality. Cambridge university press, 2009

2009
[17]

S. J. Russell. Artificial intelligence a modern approach . Pearson Education, Inc., 2010

2010
[18]

Schroeder de Witt, J

C. Schroeder de Witt, J. Foerster, G. Farquhar, P. Torr, W. Boehmer, and S. Whiteson. Multi-agent common knowledge reinforcement learning. In NeurIPS, volume 32. Curran Associates, Inc., 2019

2019
[19]

Schwab, Y

D. Schwab, Y . Zhu, and M. Veloso. Tensor action spaces for multi-agent robot transfer learning. In IEEE/RSJ IROS, pages 5380–5386, 2020

2020
[20]

H. Shi, J. Li, J. Mao, and K.-S. Hwang. Lateral transfer learning for multiagent reinforcement learning. IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics , 53(3):1699–1711, 2023

2023
[21]

Siddiqua, S

A. Siddiqua, S. Liu, A. Siddika Nipu, A. Harris, and Y . Liu. Co-evolving multi-agent transfer reinforcement learning via scenario independent representation. IEEE Access, 12:99439–99451, 2024

2024
[22]

Y . Sun, Z. Hou, and L. Li. Updet: Universal multi-agent rl via policy decoupling with transformers. In ICML, pages 9873–9883, 2021

2021
[23]

R. S. Sutton and A. G. Barto. Reinforcement learning: An introduction. MIT press, 2018

2018
[24]

Venturini, F

F. Venturini, F. Mason, F. Pase, F. Chiariotti, A. Testolin, A. Zanella, and M. Zorzi. Distributed reinforcement learning for flexible uav swarm control with transfer learning capabilities. DroNet. ACM, 2020

2020
[25]

Yadav, A

P. Yadav, A. Mishra, and S. Kim. A comprehensive survey on multi- agent reinforcement learning for connected and automated vehicles. Sensors, 23(10):4710, 2023

2023
[26]

T. Yang, W. Wang, H. Tang, J. Hao, Z. Meng, H. Mao, D. Li, W. Liu, Y . Chen, Y . Hu, C. Fan, and C. Zhang. An efficient transfer learning framework for multiagent reinforcement learning. In NeurIPS, volume 34, pages 17037–17048. Curran Associates, Inc., 2021

2021
[27]

Zhang, Z

K. Zhang, Z. Yang, and T. Bas ¸ar. Multi-agent reinforcement learning: A selective overview of theories and algorithms. Handbook of reinforce- ment learning and control , pages 321–384, 2021

2021
[28]

Zhang, L

W. Zhang, L. Deng, L. Zhang, and D. Wu. A survey on negative transfer. IEEE/CAA Journal of Automatica Sinica , 10(2):305–329, 2022

2022
[29]

Zhang, H

Y . Zhang, H. Zhao, and F. Yang. Cooperative multi-agent transfer learning with level-adaptive credit assignment. IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics, 51(12):5767–5779, 2021

2021
[30]

Zhao, E.-A

W. Zhao, E.-A. Rantala, J. Pajarinen, and J. P. Queralta. Less is more: Robust robot learning via partially observable multi-agent reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.14792 , 2023

2023 arXiv
[31]

Z. Zhou, G. Liu, and Y . Tang. Multiagent reinforcement learning: Meth- ods, trustworthiness, applications in intelligent vehicles, and challenges. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles , pages 1–23, 2024

2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

C. Adami. The elements of intelligence. Artificial Life, 29(3):293–307, 2023

work page 2023

[2] [2]

C. M. Adriano, S. Ghahremani, and H. Giese. Principled transfer learning for autonomic systems: A neuro-symbolic vision. In ACSOS-C, pages 79–84. IEEE, 2024

work page 2024

[3] [3]

C. M. Adriano, S. Ghahremani, F. Kaiser, and H. Giese. Neuro-symbolic causal reasoning for cautious self-adaptation under distribution shifts. In ACSOS, page to appear, 2025

work page 2025

[4] [4]

Athey and S

S. Athey and S. Wager. Estimating treatment effects with causal forests: An application. Observational studies, 5(2):37–51, 2019

work page 2019

[5] [5]

Bloembergen, K

D. Bloembergen, K. Tuyls, D. Hennes, and M. Kaisers. Evolutionary dynamics of multi-agent learning: A survey. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 53:659–697, 2015

work page 2015

[6] [6]

Briglia, M

G. Briglia, M. Lippi, S. Mariani, and F. Zambonelli. Improving reinforcement learning-based autonomous agents with causal models. In International Conference on Principles and Practice of Multi-Agent Systems, pages 267–283. Springer, 2024

work page 2024

[7] [7]

Castagna and I

A. Castagna and I. Dusparic. Multi-agent transfer learning in reinforce- ment learning-based ride-sharing systems. 2021

work page 2021

[8] [8]

Dagner, M

T. Dagner, M. Kr ¨ahsch¨utz, and R. Parzeller. Transfer learning for multi- agent pathfinding in discrete 3D environments. In ICIEA, pages 1–6, 2024

work page 2024