pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.02791 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-03 · 💻 cs.MA · cs.SY· eess.SY

Fully Byzantine-Resilient Distributed Multi-Agent Q-Learning

Haejoon Lee , Dimitra Panagou This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-13 18:53 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.MA cs.SYeess.SY
keywords Byzantine resiliencemulti-agent reinforcement learningdistributed Q-learningredundancy filteringtopological conditionsalmost sure convergence
0
0 comments X

The pith

A redundancy filter lets distributed Q-learning agents reach optimal values despite Byzantine edge attacks.

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

The paper establishes that multi-agent Q-learning agents can converge almost surely to the true optimal value functions even when some communication edges are under Byzantine attack. It achieves this by adding a redundancy-based filter that checks incoming messages against two-hop neighbor data, discarding corrupted ones while keeping information flowing in both directions. This removes the need for the restrictive assumptions or near-optimal guarantees found in prior resilient methods. The convergence holds only when the communication graph meets a new topological condition that the authors show can be verified quickly. Simulations demonstrate that the method succeeds where earlier approaches produce suboptimal results under the same attacks.

Core claim

Under the proposed redundancy-based filtering mechanism and the new topological condition, all agents' value functions converge almost surely to the optimal value functions despite Byzantine edge attacks.

What carries the argument

The redundancy-based filtering mechanism that uses two-hop neighbor information to validate messages while preserving bidirectional flow.

If this is right

  • Agents obtain optimal policies rather than merely near-optimal ones under attack.
  • Networks can be systematically constructed to meet the convergence condition.
  • The condition itself can be checked in polynomial time for any candidate graph.
  • The algorithm runs in a fully distributed manner without a central coordinator.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same filtering idea could be tested on other distributed reinforcement learning updates such as actor-critic methods.
  • The topological condition might serve as a design rule for building resilient communication graphs in multi-robot teams.
  • If the two-hop check adds too much latency in large networks, lighter one-hop variants could be explored as a practical trade-off.

Load-bearing premise

The underlying communication network must satisfy the specific topological condition defined in the paper.

What would settle it

A network that meets the topological condition yet produces value functions that do not converge almost surely to the optimal ones when Byzantine edge attacks are active.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.02791 by Dimitra Panagou, Haejoon Lee.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Visualizations of (a) graph [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: (a) (1, 0)-redundant graph and (b) its 1-2-hop graph. sages into the update. This differs from works such as [11], [34], which use two-hop messages only to detect and isolate malicious agents from updates. Moreover, our approach provides resilience against point-to-point Byzantine commu￾nication attacks, whereas these works consider adversaries that only broadcast the same values to all neighbors. • B. (r,… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Performance comparison of our algorithm against the optimal Q [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We study Byzantine-resilient distributed multi-agent reinforcement learning (MARL), where agents must collaboratively learn optimal value functions over a compromised communication network. Existing resilient MARL approaches typically guarantee almost sure convergence only to near-optimal value functions, or require restrictive assumptions to ensure convergence to optimal solution. As a result, agents may fail to learn the optimal policies under these methods. To address this, we propose a novel distributed Q-learning algorithm, under which all agents' value functions converge almost surely to the optimal value functions despite Byzantine edge attacks. The key idea is a redundancy-based filtering mechanism that leverages two-hop neighbor information to validate incoming messages, while preserving bidirectional information flow. We then introduce a new topological condition for the convergence of our algorithm, present a systematic method to construct such networks, and prove that this condition can be verified in polynomial time. We validate our results through simulations, showing that our method converges to the optimal solutions, whereas prior methods fail under Byzantine edge attacks.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a distributed multi-agent Q-learning algorithm resilient to Byzantine edge attacks. It introduces a redundancy-based filtering mechanism that uses two-hop neighbor information to validate incoming messages while preserving bidirectional flow. Under a newly proposed topological condition on the communication network (verifiable in polynomial time), the paper claims that all agents' value functions converge almost surely to the optimal Q* functions. A constructive method for building networks satisfying the condition is given, and simulations are reported to show convergence to optimality where prior methods fail.

Significance. If the central convergence result holds, the work would advance Byzantine-resilient MARL by delivering exact optimality rather than near-optimal guarantees common in existing approaches. The polynomial-time verification procedure and network-construction method would make the framework deployable in adversarial settings where network topology can be designed or checked in advance.

major comments (1)
  1. [§4 (convergence theorem)] The convergence theorem (stated in the abstract and presumably proved in §4) asserts almost-sure convergence to the true optimal value functions once the topological condition holds. However, the manuscript provides no proof sketch, key lemmas, or argument showing that the two-hop redundancy filter remains sound against Byzantine coalitions that fabricate consistent two-hop reports. This gap is load-bearing for the central claim that filtering isolates all Byzantine messages in every update.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Simulations] The simulation section reports that the method 'converges to the optimal solutions' but supplies no quantitative metrics (e.g., final Q-error, number of episodes, attack intensity) or explicit baselines, preventing direct assessment of practical improvement.
  2. [Introduction / §3] The precise statement of the new topological condition (e.g., its graph-theoretic definition) should appear in a dedicated definition or theorem box early in the paper rather than only in the abstract and later text.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and constructive feedback. The major comment identifies a presentational gap in the convergence argument that we will address directly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§4 (convergence theorem)] The convergence theorem (stated in the abstract and presumably proved in §4) asserts almost-sure convergence to the true optimal value functions once the topological condition holds. However, the manuscript provides no proof sketch, key lemmas, or argument showing that the two-hop redundancy filter remains sound against Byzantine coalitions that fabricate consistent two-hop reports. This gap is load-bearing for the central claim that filtering isolates all Byzantine messages in every update.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit proof sketch and highlighted key lemmas would strengthen the exposition of the central result. Although Section 4 contains the complete proof, we will revise the manuscript to insert a concise proof sketch immediately following the statement of the theorem. The sketch will first recall the topological condition and its polynomial-time verifiability, then show that this condition guarantees at least two vertex-disjoint paths from every reliable source to each agent; next, it will argue that any attempt by a Byzantine coalition to fabricate mutually consistent two-hop reports must produce a detectable inconsistency on at least one of these paths, because the condition precludes the coalition from controlling all redundant routes; finally, it will invoke the standard stochastic-approximation convergence lemma for Q-learning once Byzantine messages have been filtered. We will also extract and label the supporting lemmas used in the argument. These additions will be placed in the revised Section 4 without altering the original proof. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: convergence proof rests on independently verifiable topological condition

full rationale

The paper introduces a new topological condition on the communication graph that is defined separately from the Q-learning dynamics and is shown to be checkable in polynomial time via a systematic construction method. The redundancy-based two-hop filtering rule is then applied to incoming messages; under the condition the proof establishes that all surviving messages originate from non-Byzantine neighbors, after which standard almost-sure convergence of distributed Q-learning applies. No equation equates a fitted quantity to a prediction by construction, no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work, and no ansatz is smuggled via self-citation. The derivation chain therefore remains self-contained once the external topological assumption is granted.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the existence and verifiability of a new topological condition on the communication graph; no free parameters or invented entities are mentioned in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The communication graph satisfies the new topological condition introduced in the paper.
    The almost-sure convergence guarantee is stated to hold only when this condition is met.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5466 in / 1226 out tokens · 54981 ms · 2026-05-13T18:53:02.830770+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    R. S. Sutton and A. Barto,Reinforcement learning: An introduction. MIT press Cambridge, 1998, vol. 1, no. 1

    work page 1998

  2. [2]

    Multi-agent reinforcement learn- ing: A selective overview of theories and algorithms,

    K. Zhang, Z. Yang, and T. Bas ¸ar, “Multi-agent reinforcement learn- ing: A selective overview of theories and algorithms,”Handbook of reinforcement learning and control, pp. 321–384, 2021

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    Fully decen- tralized multi-agent reinforcement learning with networked agents,

    K. Zhang, Z. Yang, H. Liu, T. Zhang, and T. Basar, “Fully decen- tralized multi-agent reinforcement learning with networked agents,” inProceedings of the 35th International Conference on Machine Learning, ser. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, vol. 80. PMLR, 10–15 Jul 2018, pp. 5872–5881

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    Multi-agent reinforcement learning in stochastic networked systems,

    Y . Lin, G. Qu, L. Huang, and A. Wierman, “Multi-agent reinforcement learning in stochastic networked systems,” inAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 34. Curran Associates, Inc., 2021, pp. 7825–7837

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    Scalable reinforcement learning of localized policies for multi-agent networked systems,

    G. Qu, A. Wierman, and N. Li, “Scalable reinforcement learning of localized policies for multi-agent networked systems,” inProceedings of the 2nd Conference on Learning for Dynamics and Control, ser. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, vol. 120. PMLR, 10–11 Jun 2020, pp. 256–266

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    QD-learning: A collaborative distributed strategy for multi-agent reinforcement learning through consensus + innovations,

    S. Kar, J. M. F. Moura, and H. V . Poor, “QD-learning: A collaborative distributed strategy for multi-agent reinforcement learning through consensus + innovations,”IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 61, no. 7, pp. 1848–1862, 2013

    work page 2013

  7. [7]

    Learning to coordinate in multi-agent systems: A coordinated actor-critic algorithm and finite-time guarantees,

    S. Zeng, T. Chen, A. Garcia, and M. Hong, “Learning to coordinate in multi-agent systems: A coordinated actor-critic algorithm and finite-time guarantees,” inProceedings of The 4th Annual Learning for Dynamics and Control Conference, ser. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, vol. 168. PMLR, 23–24 Jun 2022, pp. 278–290

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Byzantine-resilient multiagent optimization,

    L. Su and N. H. Vaidya, “Byzantine-resilient multiagent optimization,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 66, no. 5, pp. 2227– 2233, 2021

    work page 2021

  9. [9]

    Resilient asymptotic consensus in robust networks,

    H. J. LeBlanc, H. Zhang, X. Koutsoukos, and S. Sundaram, “Resilient asymptotic consensus in robust networks,”IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 766–781, 2013

    work page 2013

  10. [10]

    Resilient distributed averaging,

    S. M. Dibaji, M. Safi, and H. Ishii, “Resilient distributed averaging,” in2019 American Control Conference (ACC), 2019, pp. 96–101

    work page 2019

  11. [11]

    Resilient average consensus with adversaries via distributed detection and recovery,

    L. Yuan and H. Ishii, “Resilient average consensus with adversaries via distributed detection and recovery,”IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 70, no. 1, pp. 415–430, 2025

    work page 2025

  12. [12]

    Partial resilient leader-follower consensus in time-varying graphs,

    H. Lee and D. Panagou, “Partial resilient leader-follower consensus in time-varying graphs,” in2026 Annual American Control Conference (ACC), 2026

    work page 2026

  13. [13]

    Distributed resilience-aware control in multi-robot networks,

    ——, “Distributed resilience-aware control in multi-robot networks,” in2025 IEEE 64th Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), 2025, pp. 3868–3875

    work page 2025

  14. [14]

    Distributed optimization under adversarial nodes,

    S. Sundaram and B. Gharesifard, “Distributed optimization under adversarial nodes,”IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 64, no. 3, pp. 1063–1076, 2019

    work page 2019

  15. [15]

    Resilient dis- tributed optimization for multiagent cyberphysical systems,

    M. Yemini, A. Nedi ´c, A. J. Goldsmith, and S. Gil, “Resilient dis- tributed optimization for multiagent cyberphysical systems,”IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 70, no. 6, pp. 3952–3967, 2025

    work page 2025

  16. [16]

    Byzantine- resilient multiagent distributed optimization under redundancy,

    Y . Zhai, Z.-W. Liu, D. Yue, S. Hu, C. Deng, and L. Ye, “Byzantine- resilient multiagent distributed optimization under redundancy,”IEEE Transactions on Control of Network Systems, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 2554– 2567, 2025

    work page 2025

  17. [17]

    Bridge: Byzantine-resilient decentralized gradient descent,

    C. Fang, Z. Yang, and W. U. Bajwa, “Bridge: Byzantine-resilient decentralized gradient descent,”IEEE Transactions on Signal and Information Processing over Networks, vol. 8, pp. 610–626, 2022

    work page 2022

  18. [18]

    Distributed statistical machine learning in adversarial settings: Byzantine gradient descent,

    Y . Chen, L. Su, and J. Xu, “Distributed statistical machine learning in adversarial settings: Byzantine gradient descent,” vol. 1, no. 2, Dec. 2017

    work page 2017

  19. [19]

    Sf-cabd: Secure byzantine fault tolerance federated learning on non-iid data,

    X. Lin, Y . Li, X. Xie, Y . Ding, X. Wu, and C. Ge, “Sf-cabd: Secure byzantine fault tolerance federated learning on non-iid data,” Knowledge-Based Systems, vol. 296, p. 111851, 2024

    work page 2024

  20. [20]

    Machine learning with adversaries: Byzantine tolerant gradient descent,

    P. Blanchard, E. M. El Mhamdi, R. Guerraoui, and J. Stainer, “Machine learning with adversaries: Byzantine tolerant gradient descent,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 30. Curran Associates, Inc., 2017

    work page 2017

  21. [21]

    Adversarial attacks in consensus-based multi-agent reinforcement learning,

    M. Figura, K. C. Kosaraju, and V . Gupta, “Adversarial attacks in consensus-based multi-agent reinforcement learning,” in2021 Ameri- can Control Conference (ACC), 2021, pp. 3050–3055

    work page 2021

  22. [22]

    Towards resilience for multi-agent qd-learning,

    Y . Xie, S. Mou, and S. Sundaram, “Towards resilience for multi-agent qd-learning,” in2021 60th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), 2021, pp. 1250–1255

    work page 2021

  23. [23]

    On the hard- ness of decentralized multi-agent policy evaluation under byzantine attacks,

    Hairi, M. Fang, Z. Zhang, A. Velasquez, and J. Liu, “On the hard- ness of decentralized multi-agent policy evaluation under byzantine attacks,” in2024 International Symposium on Modeling and Opti- mization in Mobile, Ad Hoc, and Wireless Networks (WiOpt), 2024, pp. 257–264

    work page 2024

  24. [24]

    Communication-efficient and re- silient distributed q-learning,

    Y . Xie, S. Mou, and S. Sundaram, “Communication-efficient and re- silient distributed q-learning,”IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 3351–3364, 2023

    work page 2023

  25. [25]

    Byzantine-resilient decen- tralized policy evaluation with linear function approximation,

    Z. Wu, H. Shen, T. Chen, and Q. Ling, “Byzantine-resilient decen- tralized policy evaluation with linear function approximation,”IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 69, pp. 3839–3853, 2021

    work page 2021

  26. [26]

    Communication-efficient and resilient distributed deep reinforcement learning for multi-agent systems,

    J. Yao and X. Gong, “Communication-efficient and resilient distributed deep reinforcement learning for multi-agent systems,” in2024 IEEE International Conference on Unmanned Systems (ICUS), 2024, pp. 1521–1526

    work page 2024

  27. [27]

    Resilient multiagent reinforcement learning with function approxi- mation,

    L. Ye, M. Figura, Y . Lin, M. Pal, P. Das, J. Liu, and V . Gupta, “Resilient multiagent reinforcement learning with function approxi- mation,”IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 69, no. 12, pp. 8497–8512, 2024

    work page 2024

  28. [28]

    A notion of robustness in com- plex networks,

    H. Zhang, E. Fata, and S. Sundaram, “A notion of robustness in com- plex networks,”IEEE Transactions on Control of Network Systems, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 310–320, 2015

    work page 2015

  29. [29]

    Toward resilient multi-agent actor-critic algorithms for distributed reinforcement learning,

    Y . Lin, S. Gade, R. Sandhu, and J. Liu, “Toward resilient multi-agent actor-critic algorithms for distributed reinforcement learning,” in2020 American Control Conference (ACC), 2020, pp. 3953–3958

    work page 2020

  30. [30]

    Robust reward-free actor–critic for cooperative multiagent reinforcement learning,

    Q. Lin and Q. Ling, “Robust reward-free actor–critic for cooperative multiagent reinforcement learning,”IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, vol. 35, no. 12, pp. 17 318–17 329, 2024

    work page 2024

  31. [31]

    Provably robust federated reinforcement learning,

    M. Fang, X. Wang, and N. Z. Gong, “Provably robust federated reinforcement learning,” inProceedings of the ACM on Web Con- ference 2025, ser. WWW ’25. New York, NY , USA: Association for Computing Machinery, 2025, p. 896–909

    work page 2025

  32. [32]

    Man-in-the-middle attack in wireless and computer networking—a review,

    B. Bhushan, G. Sahoo, and A. K. Rai, “Man-in-the-middle attack in wireless and computer networking—a review,” in2017 3rd Inter- national Conference on Advances in Computing, Communication & Automation (ICACCA)(Fall). IEEE, 2017, pp. 1–6

    work page 2017

  33. [33]

    Distributed secure consensus tracking for multi-agent systems: From asymptotic to finite-/fixed-time convergence,

    X. Lei, G. Wen, and M. M. Polycarpou, “Distributed secure consensus tracking for multi-agent systems: From asymptotic to finite-/fixed-time convergence,”IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, pp. 1–8, 2026

    work page 2026

  34. [34]

    Trustworthy dis- tributed average consensus based on locally assessed trust evaluations,

    C. N. Hadjicostis and A. D. Dom ´ınguez-Garc´ıa, “Trustworthy dis- tributed average consensus based on locally assessed trust evaluations,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 70, no. 1, pp. 371–386, 2025

    work page 2025

  35. [35]

    T. H. Cormen, C. E. Leiserson, R. L. Rivest, and C. Stein,Introduction to Algorithms, 3rd Edition. MIT Press, 2009

    work page 2009

  36. [36]

    Minimal construction of graphs with maximum robustness,

    H. Lee and D. Panagou, “Minimal construction of graphs with maximum robustness,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.00415, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025