Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 180 references

GenAI-based Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning towards Distributed Agent Intelligence: A Generative-RL Agent Perspective

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 Multi-agent reinforcement learning should stop reacting and start predicting.

desk verdict A useful, clearly written position paper mapping generative models onto MARL, but the proactive-advantage claim is asserted rather than demonstrated and is in direct tension with the paper's own training-stability caveat. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.09495 v1 pith:4OBM5MV6 submitted 2025-07-13 cs.AI cs.ETcs.HCcs.ROcs.SYeess.SY

Hang Wang , Junshan Zhang This is my paper
classification cs.AIcs.ETcs.HCcs.ROcs.SYeess.SY
keywords multi-agentreinforcementlearninggenerativeAIworldmodelsproactivedecision-makingnon-stationaritypartialobservabilitycollectiveintelligencepolicy
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 position paper argues that the long-standing failures of multi-agent reinforcement learning (MARL)—exponentially growing joint action spaces, non-stationary environments, and partial observability—persist because agents are designed as reactive stimulus-response systems. The authors propose reconceptualizing each agent as a generative model that learns a world model of the environment and of other agents, predicts how they will evolve, and plans actions proactively rather than responding to the latest observation. They maintain this shift would let agents synthesize multi-agent dynamics, coordinate through learned communication, and adapt to novel scenarios, unlocking collective intelligence in autonomous driving, swarm robotics, and human-AI collaboration. The article is a vision and research roadmap rather than an empirical demonstration, and its core bet is that generative prediction can outperform reactive reaction.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the generative-RL agent, a named combination of three components: a world model (a generative model of environment dynamics and inter-agent interactions, in the family of recurrent latent-state models like PlaNet and Dreamer), a generative policy (which treats multi-agent coordination as conditional sequence generation), and an integrated prediction-and-planning layer (multi-agent predictive planning, hierarchical planning, and anticipatory decision-making). The world model is the piece that carries the argument: it is what supplies multi-step prediction, uncertainty quantification, counterfactual scenario generation, and modeling of other agents' behavior, all capabilities reactive policies lack.

What would settle it

Run a controlled comparison in a procedurally generated, partially observable multi-agent benchmark in the spirit of SMACv2 between a generative-RL agent that plans with learned world models and a strong reactive baseline such as MAPPO; if the generative agent does not beat the baseline on novel-scenario generalization, prediction accuracy, or sample efficiency, the claimed proactive advantage fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central claim is that the three curses of MARL are symptoms of one underlying flaw: conventional agents are reactive. A generative-RL agent, the paper argues, is built from three coupled pieces—a learned world model that represents multi-agent environment dynamics and other agents' policies, a generative policy that produces action sequences conditioned on multi-agent context, and an integrated prediction-and-planning architecture that uses multi-step look-ahead, counterfactual rollouts, and other-agent modeling to make anticipatory decisions. The authors claim such agents can predict emergent collective behavior, prevent conflicts before they arise, and coordinate through compressed latent communication. If correct, MARL stops being a moving-target optimization problem and becomes a problem of building and maintaining predictive internal models of a shared world.

Load-bearing premise

The argument depends on generative models being able to learn sufficiently accurate and stable predictions of other agents' evolving policies and of the environment in non-stationary, partially observable settings, so that proactive plans outperform reactive responses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If agents learn predictive world models of multi-agent dynamics, they can plan multi-step action sequences, which could soften the curse of dimensionality by compressing high-dimensional interaction patterns into low-dimensional latent states.
  • If agents can anticipate other agents' policy evolution, they could adapt proactively to non-stationarity instead of chasing a moving target, potentially restoring stability to multi-agent learning.
  • If communication is generated from latent representations and imagined future trajectories, agents could exchange intentions rather than raw observations, reducing bandwidth and easing partial observability constraints.
  • If proactive decision-making works, applications such as autonomous driving, swarm robotics, and human-agent collaboration would shift from collision-avoidance reactions to conflict-prevention planning.
  • If the paradigm shift is adopted, MARL theory would need new convergence and sample-complexity frameworks, since standard guarantees rely on stationarity assumptions that generative prediction explicitly targets.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the clearest near-term test is a minimal two-agent coordination game with one fast-learning opponent, where a world-model agent's prediction loss and reward can be compared against a reactive baseline.
  • Editorial inference: the proposal implies the proactive advantage should grow as non-stationarity and partial observability increase, so a controlled sweep over opponent adaptation rate and observation noise could reveal where the paradigm breaks.
  • Editorial inference: if anticipatory agents work, they will be harder to audit than reactive ones, because behavior is driven by internal predictions rather than observed inputs; interpretability of latent communication may become a safety requirement, not a nicety.
  • Editorial inference: the same machinery suggests agents could share a common learned latent model of the world, turning coordination from explicit message passing into joint generation over a shared latent context, a direction the paper gestures at but does not develop.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper is a position/vision paper arguing that multi-agent reinforcement learning (MARL) should be fundamentally reconceptualized: instead of treating agents as reactive policy optimizers, the authors propose 'generative-RL agents' that learn generative world models of the environment and of other agents, and use these models to make proactive, anticipatory decisions. The paper surveys the conventional challenges of MARL (dimensionality, non-stationarity, partial observability), outlines how generative models might address each (e.g., via latent representations, policy-evolution prediction, and scenario generation), and sketches components such as generative policy architectures, communication/coordination, multi-agent predictive planning, and a proactive decision-making architecture. It also lists applications (autonomous driving, swarm robotics, games, human-agent collaboration) and a research roadmap. The paper contains no formal derivations, no algorithms, no experiments, and no concrete instantiation; its central claims are of the form 'generative models can enable ...' or 'we envisage that ...'. Its supporting evidence is largely borrowed from single-agent world-model successes and from various MARL communication/opponent-modeling works.

Significance. If the central claims were established, the paper would outline a genuinely important research direction that could shift MARL from reactive to model-based predictive approaches. The paper's strengths are its clear articulation of the 'proactive vs. reactive' distinction and its broad (though not systematic) synthesis of relevant literatures, including single-agent world models, opponent modeling, and communication-based MARL. However, as a scientific contribution, the paper currently does not provide evidence for its core hypothesis: that learned generative models can predict other agents' policy evolution with sufficient accuracy in non-stationary, partially observable settings to yield a benefit over reactive methods. The paper itself flags the training-stability problem (Section 4.1) but does not confront it. The contribution is therefore best characterized as a plausible but unsubstantiated research agenda rather than an established result.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sections 2.2 and 4.1] The central, load-bearing claim is that generative models can 'anticipate other agents' policy evolution' (Section 2.2) and thereby yield proactive advantages. The paper offers no formal argument, no concrete algorithm, and no experiment showing that such models can remain accurate when each agent's policy is itself changing in response to learning. The paper's own Section 4.1 concedes that 'the data distribution is constantly changing as agents adapt their behaviors' and that this creates 'fundamental challenges' for training generative models. Given that the proposed benefit reduces entirely to the reliability of these predictions, this gap is not peripheral; the proactive-advantage thesis is unsupported. The authors should either provide a concrete mechanism (e.g., an online adaptation rule, a model-error bound under bounded policy drift, or a demonstration on a concrete MARL benchmark) or explicitly state that the paper is a speculative research agenda, not a claim of established superiority.
  2. [Section 3.1.1] The paper's 'distributed agent intelligence' setting is never formally defined. The multi-agent world-model works it cites (e.g., [77], [115], [158]) are described as centralized or shared-reward, and the paper says 'In contract [sic], this project studies a general setting for distributed agent intelligence.' But no formal model (e.g., Dec-POMDP with independent rewards, networked agents, communication constraints), no algorithm, and no evaluation protocol is given. Without a concrete problem formulation, the claimed 'fundamental departure' from existing methods cannot be assessed, and the reader cannot tell how the proposed generative-RL agent differs from a single-agent world model applied independently, or from existing model-based MARL. Please define the formalism and specify what each agent conditions on and generates at decision time.
  3. [Sections 2.4 and 3.3.2] The paper's evidence for the inadequacy of reactive methods—the SMACv2 brittleness of QMIX and MAPPO (Section 2.4)—does not support the specific proposal. The generalization failure of a value-based or policy-gradient method does not imply that a generative model of the environment would be more robust to the same distribution shift; learned world models are also vulnerable when test-time dynamics differ from training-time dynamics. Similarly, the claimed capabilities in Section 3.3.2 (e.g., anticipating 'emergent collective behaviors,' preventing conflicts 'before they manifest') are never operationalized with a training objective, a planning algorithm, or a measurable outcome. As written, these are narrative descriptions, not constructs. The paper should either provide a concrete instantiation (a specific model class, a training objective, a planning procedure, and a KPI) or relabel these as long-term speculative directions.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.1.1] The phrase 'In contract' should be 'In contrast'.
  2. [Section 2.2] In the first paragraph, the sentence 'this stationarity assumption no longer holds unfortunately' is awkwardly phrased; consider 'this stationarity assumption no longer holds.'
  3. [Section 3.1.2] The phrase 'quantum leap' in the first paragraph is not appropriate for a technical paper; use a more measured expression such as 'substantial improvement'.
  4. [Throughout] The paper uses 'we propose' and 'we envisage' interchangeably; for unsupported claims, 'we hypothesize' or 'we conjecture' would be more accurate and would set the appropriate epistemic status.
  5. [Section 4.2] The word 'applciations' (in 'example applciations') is a typo for 'applications'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: this is a position paper with no derivation chain, no fitted parameters, and only contextual self-citations.

full rationale

This paper is a vision/position piece and contains no claimed derivation in which an output reduces to an input. It fits no parameters, reports no experiments, and produces no numerical predictions, so none of the circularity patterns (self-definitional equivalence, fitted input renamed as prediction, or imported uniqueness) applies. The central claim—that generative world models can enable proactive rather than reactive multi-agent decision-making—is asserted as a research direction and supported by external single-agent successes (e.g., World Models [55], Dreamer [58, 59], PlaNet [57]) and by references to multi-agent model-based works that the paper itself notes are limited to centralized or shared-reward settings (Section 3.1.1). The two self-citations ([46] CarDreamer and [153] ego-centric communicative world models for autonomous driving) appear only as application-domain examples, not as load-bearing evidence for the paradigm claim, so they do not constitute circular support. Section 4.1 explicitly identifies non-stationary training instability as an unsolved challenge, stating that 'the data distribution is constantly changing as agents adapt their behaviors,' which shows the paper is not presenting the proactive advantage as a closed derivation or a tautology. The skeptical concern that no evidence or bound guarantees world-model accuracy under simultaneous policy shift is a substantive correctness/support gap, but it is not circularity; the paper simply does not derive the proactive benefit from its own assumptions. Overall, this is an honest non-finding: score 0, no circular steps identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The paper's vision rests on four main assumptions about what generative models can learn. None of these is derived in the paper; they are borrowed from successes in single-agent generative modeling and asserted to transfer to multi-agent settings.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Generative models can learn compact, low-dimensional latent representations of multi-agent interactions that preserve coordination-critical information.
    Invoked in Section 2.1 to argue the curse of dimensionality can be mitigated, but no evidence is provided that such representations exist or are learnable for joint action spaces.
  • ad hoc to paper Agents can learn to predict other agents' policy evolution, not just current behavior.
    Section 2.2 and Section 3.1.2 assert predictive world models can anticipate opponent and teammate policy changes, which is the mechanism the entire proactive framework depends on.
  • domain assumption Generated multi-agent scenarios are realistic enough to train or plan with.
    Section 3.1.1 claims world models enable 'scalable simulation capability' for realistic scenarios, but a generative model that produces unrealistic rollouts would invalidate the approach.
  • domain assumption Emergent communication protocols can convey intentions more efficiently than predefined protocols.
    Section 3.2.2 assumes generative communication will be adaptive and compact without concrete channel or bandwidth analysis.
invented entities (1)
  • generative-RL agent
    purpose: To serve as the unit of distributed intelligence that predicts and plans through generative models instead of reacting.
    The paper defines this as a new kind of agent but provides no falsifiable handle, such as a benchmark result or measurable property, that would confirm its existence or advantage outside the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of GenAI-based Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning towards Distributed Agent Intelligence: A Generative-RL Agent Perspective." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4OBM5MV6

@misc{pith2026250709495,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: GenAI-based Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning towards Distributed Agent Intelligence: A Generative-RL Agent Perspective},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4OBM5MV6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.09495}
}
read the original abstract

Multi-agent reinforcement learning faces fundamental challenges that conventional approaches have failed to overcome: exponentially growing joint action spaces, non-stationary environments where simultaneous learning creates moving targets, and partial observability that constrains coordination. Current methods remain reactive, employing stimulus-response mechanisms that fail when facing novel scenarios. We argue for a transformative paradigm shift from reactive to proactive multi-agent intelligence through generative AI-based reinforcement learning. This position advocates reconceptualizing agents not as isolated policy optimizers, but as sophisticated generative models capable of synthesizing complex multi-agent dynamics and making anticipatory decisions based on predictive understanding of future interactions. Rather than responding to immediate observations, generative-RL agents can model environment evolution, predict other agents' behaviors, generate coordinated action sequences, and engage in strategic reasoning accounting for long-term dynamics. This approach leverages pattern recognition and generation capabilities of generative AI to enable proactive decision-making, seamless coordination through enhanced communication, and dynamic adaptation to evolving scenarios. We envision this paradigm shift will unlock unprecedented possibilities for distributed intelligence, moving beyond individual optimization toward emergent collective behaviors representing genuine collaborative intelligence. The implications extend across autonomous systems, robotics, and human-AI collaboration, promising solutions to coordination challenges intractable under traditional reactive frameworks.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

180 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

  1. [77]

    Multi-agent reinforcement learning with multi-step generative models

    Orr Krupnik, Igor Mordatch, and Aviv Tamar. “Multi-agent reinforcement learning with multi-step generative models”. In: Conference on robot learning. PMLR. 2020, pp. 776–790

    2020

  2. [115]

    Iso-dream: Isolating and leveraging noncontrollable visual dynamics in world models

    Minting Pan, Xiangming Zhu, Yunbo Wang, and Xiaokang Yang. “Iso-dream: Isolating and leveraging noncontrollable visual dynamics in world models”. In: Advances in Neural Infor- mation Processing Systems 35 (2022), pp. 23178–23191

    2022

  3. [158]

    An overview on genera- tive AI at scale with edge–cloud computing

    Yun-Cheng Wang, Jintang Xue, Chengwei Wei, and C-C Jay Kuo. “An overview on genera- tive AI at scale with edge–cloud computing”. In:IEEE Open Journal of the Communications Society 4 (2023), pp. 2952–2971

    work page 2023

  4. [1]

    Multi-agent reinforcement learning: Foundations and modern approaches

    Stefano V Albrecht, Filippos Christianos, and Lukas Sch¨ afer. Multi-agent reinforcement learning: Foundations and modern approaches . MIT Press, 2024

    2024

  5. [2]

    From Imitation to Refinement–Residual RL for Precise Assembly

    Lars Ankile, Anthony Simeonov, Idan Shenfeld, Marcel Torne, and Pulkit Agrawal. “From Imitation to Refinement–Residual RL for Precise Assembly”. In:arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.16677 (2024)

    arXiv 2024

  6. [3]

    Foundation Mod- els Defining a New Era in Vision: a Survey and Outlook

    Muhammad Awais, Muzammal Naseer, Salman Khan, Rao Muhammad Anwer, Hisham Cholakkal, Mubarak Shah, Ming-Hsuan Yang, and Fahad Shahbaz Khan. “Foundation Mod- els Defining a New Era in Vision: a Survey and Outlook”. In: IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence (2025)

    2025

  7. [4]

    Evolutionary reinforcement learning: A survey

    Hui Bai, Ran Cheng, and Yaochu Jin. “Evolutionary reinforcement learning: A survey”. In: Intelligent Computing 2 (2023), p. 0025

    2023

  8. [5]

    The power of generative ai: A review of requirements, models, input–output formats, evaluation metrics, and challenges

    Ajay Bandi, Pydi Venkata Satya Ramesh Adapa, and Yudu Eswar Vinay Pratap Kumar Kuchi. “The power of generative ai: A review of requirements, models, input–output formats, evaluation metrics, and challenges”. In: Future Internet 15.8 (2023), p. 260

    2023

Show all 180 references
  1. [6]

    Recent advances in hierarchical reinforcement learning

    Andrew G Barto and Sridhar Mahadevan. “Recent advances in hierarchical reinforcement learning”. In: Discrete event dynamic systems 13.1-2 (2003), pp. 41–77

    2003

  2. [7]

    Modelling and prediction in a complex world

    Michael Batty and Paul M Torrens. “Modelling and prediction in a complex world”. In: Futures 37.7 (2005), pp. 745–766

    2005

  3. [8]

    Deepmind lab

    Charles Beattie, Joel Z Leibo, Denis Teplyashin, Tom Ward, Marcus Wainwright, Heinrich K¨ uttler, Andrew Lefrancq, Simon Green, V ´ ıctor Vald´ es, and Amir Sadik. “Deepmind lab”. In: arXiv preprint arXiv:1612.03801 (2016)

    2016 arXiv

  4. [9]

    The arcade learning environment: An evaluation platform for general agents

    Marc G Bellemare, Yavar Naddaf, Joel Veness, and Michael Bowling. “The arcade learning environment: An evaluation platform for general agents”. In:Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 47 (2013), pp. 253–279

    2013

  5. [10]

    Ex- ploiting redundancy for reliability analysis of sensor perception in automated driving vehi- cles

    Mario Berk, Olaf Schubert, Hans-Martin Kroll, Boris Buschardt, and Daniel Straub. “Ex- ploiting redundancy for reliability analysis of sensor perception in automated driving vehi- cles”. In: IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems 21.12 (2019), pp. 5073– 5085

    2019

  6. [11]

    Multiagent reinforcement learning: Rollout and policy iteration

    Dimitri Bertsekas. “Multiagent reinforcement learning: Rollout and policy iteration”. In: IEEE/CAA Journal of Automatica Sinica 8.2 (2021), pp. 249–272

    2021

  7. [12]

    Stochastic model updat- ing with uncertainty quantification: an overview and tutorial

    Sifeng Bi, Michael Beer, Scott Cogan, and John Mottershead. “Stochastic model updat- ing with uncertainty quantification: an overview and tutorial”. In: Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 204 (2023), p. 110784

    2023

  8. [13]

    Evolutionary dy- namics of multi-agent learning: A survey

    Daan Bloembergen, Karl Tuyls, Daniel Hennes, and Michael Kaisers. “Evolutionary dy- namics of multi-agent learning: A survey”. In: Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 53 (2015), pp. 659–697

    2015

  9. [14]

    Uncertainty quantification with gener- ative models

    Vanessa B¨ ohm, Fran¸ cois Lanusse, and Uroˇ s Seljak. “Uncertainty quantification with gener- ative models”. In: arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.10046 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  10. [15]

    Human–agent interaction

    Jeffrey M Bradshaw, Paul J Feltovich, and Matthew Johnson. “Human–agent interaction”. In: The handbook of human-machine interaction . CRC Press, 2017, pp. 283–300. 19

    2017

  11. [16]

    Openai gym

    Greg Brockman, Vicki Cheung, Ludwig Pettersson, Jonas Schneider, John Schulman, Jie Tang, and Wojciech Zaremba. “Openai gym”. In: arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.01540 (2016)

    2016 arXiv

  12. [17]

    A comprehensive survey of mul- tiagent reinforcement learning

    Lucian Busoniu, Robert Babuska, and Bart De Schutter. “A comprehensive survey of mul- tiagent reinforcement learning”. In: IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C (Applications and Reviews) 38.2 (2008), pp. 156–172

    2008

  13. [18]

    Multi-agent reinforcement learning: A review of challenges and applications

    Lorenzo Canese, Gian Carlo Cardarilli, Luca Di Nunzio, Rocco Fazzolari, Daniele Giardino, Marco Re, and Sergio Span` o. “Multi-agent reinforcement learning: A review of challenges and applications”. In: Applied Sciences 11.11 (2021), p. 4948

    2021

  14. [19]

    A survey on generative diffusion models

    Hanqun Cao, Cheng Tan, Zhangyang Gao, Yilun Xu, Guangyong Chen, Pheng-Ann Heng, and Stan Z Li. “A survey on generative diffusion models”. In: IEEE Transactions on Knowl- edge and Data Engineering (2024)

    2024

  15. [20]

    Simple hi- erarchical planning with diffusion

    Chang Chen, Fei Deng, Kenji Kawaguchi, Caglar Gulcehre, and Sungjin Ahn. “Simple hi- erarchical planning with diffusion”. In: arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.02644 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  16. [21]

    Adversarial counterfactual environment model learning

    Xiong-Hui Chen, Yang Yu, Zhengmao Zhu, Zhihua Yu, Chen Zhenjun, Chenghe Wang, Yinan Wu, Rong-Jun Qin, Hongqiu Wu, Ruijin Ding, et al. “Adversarial counterfactual environment model learning”. In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36 (2023), pp. 70654–70706

    2023

  17. [22]

    Diffusion policy: Visuomotor policy learning via action diffu- sion

    Cheng Chi, Zhenjia Xu, Siyuan Feng, Eric Cousineau, Yilun Du, Benjamin Burchfiel, Russ Tedrake, and Shuran Song. “Diffusion policy: Visuomotor policy learning via action diffu- sion”. In: The International Journal of Robotics Research (2023), p. 02783649241273668

    2023

  18. [23]

    A survey on aerial swarm robotics

    Soon-Jo Chung, Aditya Avinash Paranjape, Philip Dames, Shaojie Shen, and Vijay Ku- mar. “A survey on aerial swarm robotics”. In: IEEE Transactions on Robotics 34.4 (2018), pp. 837–855

    2018

  19. [24]

    Designing human-agent collaborations: Commitment, responsiveness, and sup- port

    Nazli Cila. “Designing human-agent collaborations: Commitment, responsiveness, and sup- port”. In: Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 2022, pp. 1–18

    2022

  20. [25]

    Hierarchical planning in a distributed environment

    Daniel D Corkill. “Hierarchical planning in a distributed environment”. In: IJCAI. Vol. 79. 1979, pp. 168–175

    1979

  21. [26]

    Adaptive dynamics in coordination games

    Vincent P Crawford. “Adaptive dynamics in coordination games”. In: Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society (1995), pp. 103–143

    1995

  22. [27]

    From creatures of habit to goal-directed learners: Tracking the developmental emergence of model- based reinforcement learning

    Johannes H Decker, A Ross Otto, Nathaniel D Daw, and Catherine A Hartley. “From creatures of habit to goal-directed learners: Tracking the developmental emergence of model- based reinforcement learning”. In: Psychological science 27.6 (2016), pp. 848–858

    2016

  23. [28]

    Analytical evaluation of hierarchical planning systems

    Michael AH Dempster, Marshall L Fisher, L Jansen, BJ Lageweg, Jan Karel Lenstra, and AHG Rinnooy Kan. “Analytical evaluation of hierarchical planning systems”. In: Operations Research 29.4 (1981), pp. 707–716

    1981

  24. [29]

    Swarm robotics: A perspective on the latest reviewed concepts and applications

    Pollyanna G Faria Dias, Mateus C Silva, Geraldo P Rocha Filho, Patr ´ ıcia A Vargas, Luciano P Cota, and Gustavo Pessin. “Swarm robotics: A perspective on the latest reviewed concepts and applications”. In: Sensors 21.6 (2021), p. 2062

    2021

  25. [30]

    Tutorial on variational autoencoders

    Carl Doersch. “Tutorial on variational autoencoders”. In: arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.05908 (2016)

    2016 arXiv

  26. [31]

    Swarm robotics: Past, present, and future [point of view]

    Marco Dorigo, Guy Theraulaz, and Vito Trianni. “Swarm robotics: Past, present, and future [point of view]”. In: Proceedings of the IEEE 109.7 (2021), pp. 1152–1165. 20

    2021

  27. [32]

    A survey on multi-agent deep reinforcement learning: from the perspective of challenges and applications

    Wei Du and Shifei Ding. “A survey on multi-agent deep reinforcement learning: from the perspective of challenges and applications”. In: Artificial Intelligence Review 54.5 (2021), pp. 3215–3238

    2021

  28. [33]

    Gtbench: Uncovering the strategic reasoning limitations of llms via game-theoretic evaluations

    Jinhao Duan, Renming Zhang, James Diffenderfer, Bhavya Kailkhura, Lichao Sun, Elias Stengel-Eskin, Mohit Bansal, Tianlong Chen, and Kaidi Xu. “Gtbench: Uncovering the strategic reasoning limitations of llms via game-theoretic evaluations”. In: arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.12348 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  29. [34]

    Minecraft, beyond construction and survival

    Sean C Duncan. “Minecraft, beyond construction and survival”. In: (2011)

    2011

  30. [35]

    Biases for emergent communication in multi-agent reinforcement learning

    Tom Eccles, Yoram Bachrach, Guy Lever, Angeliki Lazaridou, and Thore Graepel. “Biases for emergent communication in multi-agent reinforcement learning”. In: Advances in neural information processing systems 32 (2019)

    2019

  31. [36]

    Scalable Multi-Agent Model-Based Reinforcement Learning

    Vladimir Egorov and Alexei Shpilman. “Scalable Multi-Agent Model-Based Reinforcement Learning”. In: Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems . 2022, pp. 381–390

    2022

  32. [37]

    Smacv2: An improved benchmark for cooperative multi- agent reinforcement learning, 2022

    Benjamin Ellis, Skander Moalla, Mikayel Samvelyan, Mingfei Sun, Anuj Mahajan, Jakob N Foerster, and Shimon Whiteson. “Smacv2: An improved benchmark for cooperative multi- agent reinforcement learning, 2022”. In: URL https://arxiv. org/abs/2212.07489 3 ()

    2022 arXiv

  33. [38]

    Adaptive team coordination

    Elliot E Entin and Daniel Serfaty. “Adaptive team coordination”. In: Human factors 41.2 (1999), pp. 312–325

    1999

  34. [39]

    The influence of agent reliability on trust in human-agent collabo- ration

    Xiaocong Fan, Sooyoung Oh, Michael McNeese, John Yen, Haydee Cuevas, Laura Strater, and Mica R Endsley. “The influence of agent reliability on trust in human-agent collabo- ration”. In: Proceedings of the 15th European conference on Cognitive ergonomics: the er- gonomics of co...

    2008

  35. [40]

    Extending the recognition- primed decision model to support human-agent collaboration

    Xiaocong Fan, Shuang Sun, Michale McNeese, and John Yen. “Extending the recognition- primed decision model to support human-agent collaboration”. In: Proceedings of the fourth international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems. 2005, pp. 945– 952

    2005

  36. [41]

    GenAI against humanity: Nefarious applications of generative artificial intelligence and large language models

    Emilio Ferrara. “GenAI against humanity: Nefarious applications of generative artificial intelligence and large language models”. In: Journal of Computational Social Science 7.1 (2024), pp. 549–569

    2024

  37. [42]

    Generative ai

    Stefan Feuerriegel, Jochen Hartmann, Christian Janiesch, and Patrick Zschech. “Generative ai”. In: Business & Information Systems Engineering 66.1 (2024), pp. 111–126

    2024

  38. [43]

    Learn- ing to communicate with deep multi-agent reinforcement learning

    Jakob Foerster, Ioannis Alexandros Assael, Nando De Freitas, and Shimon Whiteson. “Learn- ing to communicate with deep multi-agent reinforcement learning”. In: Advances in neural information processing systems 29 (2016)

    2016

  39. [44]

    Counterfactual vision-and-language navigation via adversarial path sampler

    Tsu-Jui Fu, Xin Eric Wang, Matthew F Peterson, Scott T Grafton, Miguel P Eckstein, and William Yang Wang. “Counterfactual vision-and-language navigation via adversarial path sampler”. In: Computer Vision–ECCV 2020: 16th European Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23–28, 2020, Pro...

    2020

  40. [45]

    Generative AI and ChatGPT: Applications, challenges, and AI-human collaboration

    Fiona Fui-Hoon Nah, Ruilin Zheng, Jingyuan Cai, Keng Siau, and Langtao Chen. Generative AI and ChatGPT: Applications, challenges, and AI-human collaboration . 2023

    2023

  41. [46]

    Cardreamer: Open-source learning platform for world model based autonomous driving

    Dechen Gao, Shuangyu Cai, Hanchu Zhou, Hang Wang, Iman Soltani, and Junshan Zhang. “Cardreamer: Open-source learning platform for world model based autonomous driving”. In: IEEE Internet of Things Journal (2024). 21

    2024

  42. [47]

    Model predictive control: Theory and practice—A survey

    Carlos E Garcia, David M Prett, and Manfred Morari. “Model predictive control: Theory and practice—A survey”. In: Automatica 25.3 (1989), pp. 335–348

    1989

  43. [48]

    A framework for sequential planning in multi- agent settings

    Piotr J Gmytrasiewicz and Prashant Doshi. “A framework for sequential planning in multi- agent settings”. In: Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 24 (2005), pp. 49–79

    2005

  44. [49]

    A survey of Generative AI Applications

    Roberto Gozalo-Brizuela and Eduardo C Garrido-Merch´ an. “A survey of Generative AI Applications”. In: arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.02781 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  45. [50]

    Multi-agent deep reinforcement learning: a survey

    Sven Gronauer and Klaus Diepold. “Multi-agent deep reinforcement learning: a survey”. In: Artificial Intelligence Review 55.2 (2022), pp. 895–943

    2022

  46. [51]

    Concept-based un- derstanding of emergent multi-agent behavior

    Niko Grupen, Natasha Jaques, Been Kim, and Shayegan Omidshafiei. “Concept-based un- derstanding of emergent multi-agent behavior”. In: Deep Reinforcement Learning Workshop NeurIPS 2022 . 2022

    2022

  47. [52]

    Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning

    Daya Guo, Dejian Yang, Haowei Zhang, Junxiao Song, Ruoyu Zhang, Runxin Xu, Qihao Zhu, Shirong Ma, Peiyi Wang, Xiao Bi, et al. “Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning”. In: arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12948 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  48. [53]

    Networked multi-agent reinforce- ment learning with emergent communication

    Shubham Gupta, Rishi Hazra, and Ambedkar Dukkipati. “Networked multi-agent reinforce- ment learning with emergent communication”. In: arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.02780 (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  49. [54]

    Recurrent world models facilitate policy evolution

    David Ha and J¨ urgen Schmidhuber. “Recurrent world models facilitate policy evolution”. In: Advances in neural information processing systems 31 (2018)

    2018

  50. [55]

    World models

    David Ha and J¨ urgen Schmidhuber. “World models”. In: arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.10122 (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  51. [56]

    Deep hierarchical plan- ning from pixels

    Danijar Hafner, Kuang-Huei Lee, Ian Fischer, and Pieter Abbeel. “Deep hierarchical plan- ning from pixels”. In:Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems35 (2022), pp. 26091– 26104

    2022

  52. [57]

    Learning latent dynamics for planning from pixels

    Danijar Hafner, Timothy Lillicrap, Ian Fischer, Ruben Villegas, David Ha, Honglak Lee, and James Davidson. “Learning latent dynamics for planning from pixels”. In: International conference on machine learning . PMLR. 2019, pp. 2555–2565

    2019

  53. [58]

    Mastering atari with discrete world models

    Danijar Hafner, Timothy Lillicrap, Mohammad Norouzi, and Jimmy Ba. “Mastering atari with discrete world models”. In: arXiv:2010.02193 (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  54. [59]

    Mastering diverse domains through world models

    Danijar Hafner, Jurgis Pasukonis, Jimmy Ba, and Timothy Lillicrap. “Mastering diverse domains through world models”. In: arXiv:2301.04104 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  55. [60]

    A comprehensive survey and analysis of generative models in machine learning

    GM Harshvardhan, Mahendra Kumar Gourisaria, Manjusha Pandey, and Siddharth Swarup Rautaray. “A comprehensive survey and analysis of generative models in machine learning”. In: Computer Science Review 38 (2020), p. 100285

    2020

  56. [61]

    Opponent modeling in deep reinforcement learning

    He He, Jordan Boyd-Graber, Kevin Kwok, and Hal Daum´ e III. “Opponent modeling in deep reinforcement learning”. In: International conference on machine learning . PMLR. 2016, pp. 1804–1813

    2016

  57. [62]

    A survey of learning in multiagent environments: Dealing with non-stationarity

    Pablo Hernandez-Leal, Michael Kaisers, Tim Baarslag, and Enrique Munoz De Cote. “A survey of learning in multiagent environments: Dealing with non-stationarity”. In: arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.09183 (2017)

    2017 arXiv

  58. [63]

    HDDL: An extension to PDDL for expressing hierarchical planning problems

    Daniel H¨ oller, Gregor Behnke, Pascal Bercher, Susanne Biundo, Humbert Fiorino, Damien Pellier, and Ron Alford. “HDDL: An extension to PDDL for expressing hierarchical planning problems”. In: Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence. Vol. 34. 06. 2020, pp...

    2020

  59. [64]

    Gaia-1: A generative world model for autonomous driving

    Anthony Hu, Lloyd Russell, Hudson Yeo, Zak Murez, George Fedoseev, Alex Kendall, Jamie Shotton, and Gianluca Corrado. “Gaia-1: A generative world model for autonomous driving”. In: arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.17080 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  60. [65]

    Rethinking the implementation tricks and monotonicity constraint in cooperative multi-agent reinforcement learning

    Jian Hu, Siyang Jiang, Seth Austin Harding, Haibin Wu, and Shih-wei Liao. “Rethinking the implementation tricks and monotonicity constraint in cooperative multi-agent reinforcement learning”. In: arXiv preprint arXiv:2102.03479 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  61. [66]

    MARLlib: A Scalable and Efficient Multi-agent Reinforcement Learning Library

    Siyi Hu, Yifan Zhong, Minquan Gao, Weixun Wang, Hao Dong, Xiaodan Liang, Zhihui Li, Xiaojun Chang, and Yaodong Yang. “MARLlib: A Scalable and Efficient Multi-agent Reinforcement Learning Library”. In: Journal of Machine Learning Research (2023)

    2023

  62. [67]

    Deep reinforcement learn- ing for swarm systems

    Maximilian H¨ uttenrauch, Adrian ˇSoˇ si´ c, and Gerhard Neumann. “Deep reinforcement learn- ing for swarm systems”. In: Journal of Machine Learning Research 20.54 (2019), pp. 1– 31

    2019

  63. [68]

    Reinforcement learning algorithm for partially observable Markov decision problems

    Tommi Jaakkola, Satinder Singh, and Michael Jordan. “Reinforcement learning algorithm for partially observable Markov decision problems”. In: Advances in neural information processing systems 7 (1994)

    1994

  64. [69]

    Learning attentional communication for multi-agent co- operation

    Jiechuan Jiang and Zongqing Lu. “Learning attentional communication for multi-agent co- operation”. In: Advances in neural information processing systems 31 (2018)

    2018

  65. [70]

    Reinforcement learning of coordination in het- erogeneous cooperative multi-agent systems

    Spiros Kapetanakis and Daniel Kudenko. “Reinforcement learning of coordination in het- erogeneous cooperative multi-agent systems”. In: Symposium on Adaptive Agents and Multi- agent Systems . Springer. 2003, pp. 119–131

    2003

  66. [71]

    On generating plausible counterfactual and semi-factual explanations for deep learning

    Eoin M Kenny and Mark T Keane. “On generating plausible counterfactual and semi-factual explanations for deep learning”. In: Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intel- ligence. Vol. 35. 13. 2021, pp. 11575–11585

    2021

  67. [72]

    An overview of swarm robotics: Swarm intelligence applied to multi-robotics

    Belkacem Khaldi and Foudil Cherif. “An overview of swarm robotics: Swarm intelligence applied to multi-robotics”. In: International Journal of Computer Applications 126.2 (2015)

    2015

  68. [73]

    OpenVLA: An Open-Source Vision-Language-Action Model

    Moo Jin Kim et al. “OpenVLA: An Open-Source Vision-Language-Action Model”. In: arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.09246 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  69. [74]

    Communication in multi-agent reinforce- ment learning: Intention sharing

    Woojun Kim, Jongeui Park, and Youngchul Sung. “Communication in multi-agent reinforce- ment learning: Intention sharing”. In:International Conference on Learning Representations. 2020

    2020

  70. [75]

    Auto-encoding variational bayes

    Diederik P Kingma and Max Welling. “Auto-encoding variational bayes”. In: arXiv:1312.6114 (2013)

    2013 arXiv

  71. [76]

    Human interaction with robot swarms: A survey

    Andreas Kolling, Phillip Walker, Nilanjan Chakraborty, Katia Sycara, and Michael Lewis. “Human interaction with robot swarms: A survey”. In: IEEE Transactions on Human- Machine Systems 46.1 (2015), pp. 9–26

    2015

  72. [78]

    Conservative q-learning for offline reinforcement learning

    Aviral Kumar, Aurick Zhou, George Tucker, and Sergey Levine. “Conservative q-learning for offline reinforcement learning”. In: arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.04779 (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  73. [79]

    Application of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) in language teach- ing and learning: A scoping literature review

    Locky Law. “Application of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) in language teach- ing and learning: A scoping literature review”. In: Computers and Education Open (2024), p. 100174. 23

    2024

  74. [80]

    Emergent multi-agent communication in the deep learning era

    Angeliki Lazaridou and Marco Baroni. “Emergent multi-agent communication in the deep learning era”. In: arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.02419 (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  75. [81]

    Backpropagation applied to handwritten zip code recog- nition

    Yann LeCun, Bernhard Boser, John S Denker, Donnie Henderson, Richard E Howard, Wayne Hubbard, and Lawrence D Jackel. “Backpropagation applied to handwritten zip code recog- nition”. In: Neural computation 1.4 (1989), pp. 541–551

    1989

  76. [82]

    Emergent translation in multi-agent communication

    Jason Lee, Kyunghyun Cho, Jason Weston, and Douwe Kiela. “Emergent translation in multi-agent communication”. In: arXiv preprint arXiv:1710.06922 (2017)

    2017 arXiv

  77. [83]

    Guided policy search

    Sergey Levine and Vladlen Koltun. “Guided policy search”. In: International conference on machine learning. PMLR. 2013, pp. 1–9

    2013

  78. [84]

    Hierarchical planning through goal-conditioned offline reinforcement learning

    Jinning Li, Chen Tang, Masayoshi Tomizuka, and Wei Zhan. “Hierarchical planning through goal-conditioned offline reinforcement learning”. In: IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 7.4 (2022), pp. 10216–10223

    2022

  79. [85]

    Adaptive iterative learning control for coordination of second- order multi-agent systems

    Jinsha Li and Junmin Li. “Adaptive iterative learning control for coordination of second- order multi-agent systems”. In: International Journal of Robust and Nonlinear Control 24.18 (2014), pp. 3282–3299

    2014

  80. [86]

    CogACT: A Foundational Vision-Language-Action Model for Synergizing Cognition and Action in Robotic Manipulation

    Qixiu Li, Yaobo Liang, Zeyu Wang, Lin Luo, Xi Chen, Mozheng Liao, Fangyun Wei, Yu Deng, Sicheng Xu, Yizhong Zhang, et al. “CogACT: A Foundational Vision-Language-Action Model for Synergizing Cognition and Action in Robotic Manipulation”. In: arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.19650 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  81. [87]

    RDT-1B: a Diffusion Foundation Model for Bimanual Manip- ulation

    Songming Liu, Lingxuan Wu, Bangguo Li, Hengkai Tan, Huayu Chen, Zhengyi Wang, Ke Xu, Hang Su, and Jun Zhu. “RDT-1B: a Diffusion Foundation Model for Bimanual Manip- ulation”. In: arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.07864 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  82. [88]

    Multi- agent game abstraction via graph attention neural network

    Yong Liu, Weixun Wang, Yujing Hu, Jianye Hao, Xingguo Chen, and Yang Gao. “Multi- agent game abstraction via graph attention neural network”. In: Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence . Vol. 34. 05. 2020, pp. 7211–7218

    2020

  83. [89]

    A review of uncertainty for deep reinforcement learning

    Owen Lockwood and Mei Si. “A review of uncertainty for deep reinforcement learning”. In: Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Digital Entertainment. Vol. 18. 1. 2022, pp. 155–162

    2022

  84. [90]

    Multi-agent actor-critic for mixed cooperative-competitive environments

    Ryan Lowe, Yi I Wu, Aviv Tamar, Jean Harb, OpenAI Pieter Abbeel, and Igor Mordatch. “Multi-agent actor-critic for mixed cooperative-competitive environments”. In: Advances in neural information processing systems 30 (2017)

    2017

  85. [91]

    Jfp: Joint future prediction with interactive multi-agent modeling for autonomous driving

    Wenjie Luo, Cheol Park, Andre Cornman, Benjamin Sapp, and Dragomir Anguelov. “Jfp: Joint future prediction with interactive multi-agent modeling for autonomous driving”. In: Conference on Robot Learning. PMLR. 2023, pp. 1457–1467

    2023

  86. [92]

    Algorithmic framework for model-based deep reinforcement learning with theoretical guar- antees

    Yuping Luo, Huazhe Xu, Yuanzhi Li, Yuandong Tian, Trevor Darrell, and Tengyu Ma. “Algorithmic framework for model-based deep reinforcement learning with theoretical guar- antees”. In: arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.03858 (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  87. [93]

    Generate your coun- terfactuals: Towards controlled counterfactual generation for text

    Nishtha Madaan, Inkit Padhi, Naveen Panwar, and Diptikalyan Saha. “Generate your coun- terfactuals: Towards controlled counterfactual generation for text”. In: Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence . Vol. 35. 15. 2021, pp. 13516–13524

    2021

  88. [94]

    What matters in learning from offline human demonstrations for robot manipulation

    Ajay Mandlekar, Danfei Xu, Josiah Wong, Soroush Nasiriany, Chen Wang, Rohun Kulka- rni, Li Fei-Fei, Silvio Savarese, Yuke Zhu, and Roberto Mart ´ ın-Mart ´ ın. “What matters in learning from offline human demonstrations for robot manipulation”. In: arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.03...

    2021 arXiv

  89. [95]

    Wedge: A multi- weather autonomous driving dataset built from generative vision-language models

    Aboli Marathe, Deva Ramanan, Rahee Walambe, and Ketan Kotecha. “Wedge: A multi- weather autonomous driving dataset built from generative vision-language models”. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. 2023, pp. 3318–3327

    2023

  90. [96]

    Emergent behaviors and scalability for multi-agent reinforcement learning-based pedestrian models

    Francisco Martinez-Gil, Miguel Lozano, and Fernando Fern´ andez. “Emergent behaviors and scalability for multi-agent reinforcement learning-based pedestrian models”. In: Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory 74 (2017), pp. 117–133

    2017

  91. [97]

    Independent reinforce- ment learners in cooperative markov games: a survey regarding coordination problems

    Laetitia Matignon, Guillaume J Laurent, and Nadine Le Fort-Piat. “Independent reinforce- ment learners in cooperative markov games: a survey regarding coordination problems”. In: The Knowledge Engineering Review 27.1 (2012), pp. 1–31

    2012

  92. [98]

    Playing atari with deep reinforcement learning

    Volodymyr Mnih, Koray Kavukcuoglu, David Silver, Alex Graves, Ioannis Antonoglou, Daan Wierstra, and Martin Riedmiller. “Playing atari with deep reinforcement learning”. In:arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.5602 (2013)

    2013 arXiv

  93. [99]

    Model-based reinforcement learning: A survey

    Thomas M Moerland, Joost Broekens, Aske Plaat, Catholijn M Jonker, et al. “Model-based reinforcement learning: A survey”. In: Foundations and Trends® in Machine Learning 16.1 (2023), pp. 1–118

    2023

  94. [100]

    ML-Plan: Automated machine learning via hierarchical planning

    Felix Mohr, Marcel Wever, and Eyke H¨ ullermeier. “ML-Plan: Automated machine learning via hierarchical planning”. In: Machine Learning 107 (2018), pp. 1495–1515

    2018

  95. [101]

    Efficient decision- making under uncertainty for proactive self-adaptation

    Gabriel A Moreno, Javier C´ amara, David Garlan, and Bradley Schmerl. “Efficient decision- making under uncertainty for proactive self-adaptation”. In: 2016 IEEE International Con- ference on Autonomic Computing (ICAC) . IEEE. 2016, pp. 147–156

    2016

  96. [102]

    Evolutionary algorithms for reinforcement learning

    David E Moriarty, Alan C Schultz, and John J Grefenstette. “Evolutionary algorithms for reinforcement learning”. In: Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 11 (1999), pp. 241– 276

    1999

  97. [103]

    A machine learning-driven approach for proac- tive decision making in adaptive architectures

    Henry Muccini and Karthik Vaidhyanathan. “A machine learning-driven approach for proac- tive decision making in adaptive architectures”. In: 2019 IEEE international conference on software architecture companion (ICSA-C). IEEE. 2019, pp. 242–245

    2019

  98. [104]

    A survey of robot learning strategies for human-robot collaboration in industrial settings

    Debasmita Mukherjee, Kashish Gupta, Li Hsin Chang, and Homayoun Najjaran. “A survey of robot learning strategies for human-robot collaboration in industrial settings”. In:Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 73 (2022), p. 102231

    2022

  99. [105]

    An introduction to swarm robotics

    I˜ naki Navarro and Fernando Mat ´ ıa. “An introduction to swarm robotics”. In:International Scholarly Research Notices 2013.1 (2013), p. 608164

    2013

  100. [106]

    Trajectory planning for autonomous vehicles using hierarchical reinforcement learning

    Kaleb Ben Naveed, Zhiqian Qiao, and John M Dolan. “Trajectory planning for autonomous vehicles using hierarchical reinforcement learning”. In: 2021 IEEE International Intelligent Transportation Systems Conference (ITSC). IEEE. 2021, pp. 601–606

    2021

  101. [107]

    Emergent social learning via multi-agent reinforcement learning

    Kamal K Ndousse, Douglas Eck, Sergey Levine, and Natasha Jaques. “Emergent social learning via multi-agent reinforcement learning”. In: International conference on machine learning. PMLR. 2021, pp. 7991–8004

    2021

  102. [108]

    Multi-agent model pre- dictive control: A survey

    Rudy R Negenborn, Bart De Schutter, and Johannes Hellendoorn. “Multi-agent model pre- dictive control: A survey”. In: arXiv preprint arXiv:0908.1076 (2009)

    2009 arXiv

  103. [109]

    Deep reinforcement learn- ing for multiagent systems: A review of challenges, solutions, and applications

    Thanh Thi Nguyen, Ngoc Duy Nguyen, and Saeid Nahavandi. “Deep reinforcement learn- ing for multiagent systems: A review of challenges, solutions, and applications”. In: IEEE transactions on cybernetics 50.9 (2020), pp. 3826–3839. 25

    2020

  104. [110]

    Evolution of reinforcement learning in uncertain environments: A simple explanation for complex foraging behaviors

    Yael Niv, Daphna Joel, Isaac Meilijson, and Eytan Ruppin. “Evolution of reinforcement learning in uncertain environments: A simple explanation for complex foraging behaviors”. In: (2002)

    2002

  105. [111]

    Optimal and approximate Q- value functions for decentralized POMDPs

    Frans A Oliehoek, Matthijs TJ Spaan, and Nikos Vlassis. “Optimal and approximate Q- value functions for decentralized POMDPs”. In: Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 32 (2008), pp. 289–353

    2008

  106. [112]

    Deep decentralized multi-task multi-agent reinforcement learning under partial observabil- ity

    Shayegan Omidshafiei, Jason Pazis, Christopher Amato, Jonathan P How, and John Vian. “Deep decentralized multi-task multi-agent reinforcement learning under partial observabil- ity”. In: International Conference on Machine Learning . PMLR. 2017, pp. 2681–2690

    2017

  107. [113]

    A hierarchical planning approach for a production- distribution system

    Linet Ozdamar and Tulin Yazgac. “A hierarchical planning approach for a production- distribution system”. In: International Journal of Production Research37.16 (1999), pp. 3759– 3772

    1999

  108. [114]

    A survey of reinforcement learning algorithms for dynamically varying environments

    Sindhu Padakandla. “A survey of reinforcement learning algorithms for dynamically varying environments”. In: ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) 54.6 (2021), pp. 1–25

    2021

  109. [116]

    Deal- ing with non-stationarity in multi-agent deep reinforcement learning

    Georgios Papoudakis, Filippos Christianos, Arrasy Rahman, and Stefano V Albrecht. “Deal- ing with non-stationarity in multi-agent deep reinforcement learning”. In: arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.04737 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  110. [117]

    Counterfactual vision-and-language navigation: Unravelling the unseen

    Amin Parvaneh, Ehsan Abbasnejad, Damien Teney, Javen Qinfeng Shi, and Anton Van den Hengel. “Counterfactual vision-and-language navigation: Unravelling the unseen”. In: Advances in neural information processing systems 33 (2020), pp. 5296–5307

    2020

  111. [118]

    Hierarchical rein- forcement learning: A comprehensive survey

    Shubham Pateria, Budhitama Subagdja, Ah-hwee Tan, and Chai Quek. “Hierarchical rein- forcement learning: A comprehensive survey”. In: ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) 54.5 (2021), pp. 1–35

    2021

  112. [119]

    Survey of model-based reinforcement learning: Applications on robotics

    Athanasios S Polydoros and Lazaros Nalpantidis. “Survey of model-based reinforcement learning: Applications on robotics”. In: Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems 86.2 (2017), pp. 153–173

    2017

  113. [120]

    Learning to communicate through imagination with model-based deep multi-agent reinforcement learning

    Arnu Pretorius, Scott Cameron, Andries Petrus Smit, Elan van Biljon, Lawrence Fran- cis, Femi Azeez, Alexandre Laterre, and Karim Beguir. “Learning to communicate through imagination with model-based deep multi-agent reinforcement learning”. In: (2020)

    2020

  114. [121]

    Tool learning with foundation models

    Yujia Qin, Shengding Hu, Yankai Lin, Weize Chen, Ning Ding, Ganqu Cui, Zheni Zeng, Xuanhe Zhou, Yufei Huang, Chaojun Xiao, et al. “Tool learning with foundation models”. In: ACM Computing Surveys 57.4 (2024), pp. 1–40

    2024

  115. [122]

    Scalable multi-agent reinforcement learning for networked systems with average reward

    Guannan Qu, Yiheng Lin, Adam Wierman, and Na Li. “Scalable multi-agent reinforcement learning for networked systems with average reward”. In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33 (2020), pp. 2074–2086

    2020

  116. [123]

    Human–agent collab- oration for disaster response

    Sarvapali D Ramchurn, Feng Wu, Wenchao Jiang, Joel E Fischer, Steve Reece, Stephen Roberts, Tom Rodden, Chris Greenhalgh, and Nicholas R Jennings. “Human–agent collab- oration for disaster response”. In: Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 30 (2016), pp. 82–111. 26

    2016

  117. [124]

    The impact, advancements and applications of generative AI

    Balagopal Ramdurai and Prasanna Adhithya. “The impact, advancements and applications of generative AI”. In: International Journal of Computer Science and Engineering 10.6 (2023), pp. 1–8

    2023

  118. [125]

    Monotonic value function factorisation for deep multi- agent reinforcement learning

    Tabish Rashid, Mikayel Samvelyan, Christian Schroeder De Witt, Gregory Farquhar, Jakob Foerster, and Shimon Whiteson. “Monotonic value function factorisation for deep multi- agent reinforcement learning”. In: Journal of Machine Learning Research 21.178 (2020), pp. 1–51

    2020

  119. [126]

    Diffusion policy policy optimization

    Allen Z Ren, Justin Lidard, Lars L Ankile, Anthony Simeonov, Pulkit Agrawal, Anirudha Majumdar, Benjamin Burchfiel, Hongkai Dai, and Max Simchowitz. “Diffusion policy policy optimization”. In: arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.00588 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  120. [127]

    Distributed coordination of multi-agent networks: emergent prob- lems, models, and issues

    Wei Ren and Yongcan Cao. Distributed coordination of multi-agent networks: emergent prob- lems, models, and issues . Springer Science & Business Media, 2010

    2010

  121. [128]

    Evolving reinforcement learning algorithms

    John D Co-Reyes, Yingjie Miao, Daiyi Peng, Esteban Real, Sergey Levine, Quoc V Le, Honglak Lee, and Aleksandra Faust. “Evolving reinforcement learning algorithms”. In:arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.03958 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  122. [129]

    Precog: Predic- tion conditioned on goals in visual multi-agent settings

    Nicholas Rhinehart, Rowan McAllister, Kris Kitani, and Sergey Levine. “Precog: Predic- tion conditioned on goals in visual multi-agent settings”. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision . 2019, pp. 2821–2830

    2019

  123. [130]

    Swarm robotics: From sources of inspiration to domains of application

    Erol S ¸ahin. “Swarm robotics: From sources of inspiration to domains of application”. In: International workshop on swarm robotics . Springer. 2004, pp. 10–20

    2004

  124. [131]

    Learning deep generative models

    Ruslan Salakhutdinov. “Learning deep generative models”. In: Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application 2.1 (2015), pp. 361–385

    2015

  125. [132]

    The starcraft multi-agent challenge

    Mikayel Samvelyan, Tabish Rashid, Christian Schroeder De Witt, Gregory Farquhar, Nan- tas Nardelli, Tim GJ Rudner, Chia-Man Hung, Philip HS Torr, Jakob Foerster, and Shi- mon Whiteson. “The starcraft multi-agent challenge”. In: arXiv preprint arXiv:1902.04043 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  126. [133]

    Counterfactual generative networks

    Axel Sauer and Andreas Geiger. “Counterfactual generative networks”. In: arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.06046 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  127. [134]

    Swarm robotic behaviors and current applications

    Melanie Schranz, Martina Umlauft, Micha Sende, and Wilfried Elmenreich. “Swarm robotic behaviors and current applications”. In: Frontiers in Robotics and AI 7 (2020), p. 36

    2020

  128. [135]

    Generative artificial intelligence: a systematic review and applications

    Sandeep Singh Sengar, Affan Bin Hasan, Sanjay Kumar, and Fiona Carroll. “Generative artificial intelligence: a systematic review and applications”. In: Multimedia Tools and Ap- plications (2024), pp. 1–40

    2024

  129. [136]

    Emergent real-world robotic skills via unsupervised off-policy reinforcement learning

    Archit Sharma, Michael Ahn, Sergey Levine, Vikash Kumar, Karol Hausman, and Shixiang Gu. “Emergent real-world robotic skills via unsupervised off-policy reinforcement learning”. In: arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.12974 (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  130. [137]

    Multiagent systems: Algorithmic, game-theoretic, and logical foundations

    Yoav Shoham and Kevin Leyton-Brown. Multiagent systems: Algorithmic, game-theoretic, and logical foundations . Cambridge University Press, 2008

    2008

  131. [138]

    Multi-agent reinforcement learning: a critical survey

    Yoav Shoham, Rob Powers, and Trond Grenager. Multi-agent reinforcement learning: a critical survey. Tech. rep. Citeseer, 2003

    2003

  132. [139]

    The predictron: End- to-end learning and planning

    David Silver, Hado Hasselt, Matteo Hessel, Tom Schaul, Arthur Guez, Tim Harley, Gabriel Dulac-Arnold, David Reichert, Neil Rabinowitz, Andre Barreto, et al. “The predictron: End- to-end learning and planning”. In: International Conference on Machine Learning . PMLR. 2017, pp. ...

    2017

  133. [140]

    Mastering the game of Go with deep neural networks and tree search

    David Silver, Aja Huang, Chris J Maddison, Arthur Guez, Laurent Sifre, George Van Den Driessche, Julian Schrittwieser, Ioannis Antonoglou, Veda Panneershelvam, Marc Lanctot, et al. “Mastering the game of Go with deep neural networks and tree search”. In: nature 529.7587 (2016)...

    2016

  134. [141]

    A general reinforcement learning algorithm that masters chess, shogi, and Go through self-play

    David Silver, Thomas Hubert, Julian Schrittwieser, Ioannis Antonoglou, Matthew Lai, Arthur Guez, Marc Lanctot, Laurent Sifre, Dharshan Kumaran, Thore Graepel, et al. “A general reinforcement learning algorithm that masters chess, shogi, and Go through self-play”. In: Science 3...

    2018

  135. [142]

    Multi-agent generative adversarial imitation learning

    Jiaming Song, Hongyu Ren, Dorsa Sadigh, and Stefano Ermon. “Multi-agent generative adversarial imitation learning”. In: Advances in neural information processing systems 31 (2018)

    2018

  136. [143]

    Learning multiagent communication with back- propagation

    Sainbayar Sukhbaatar, Rob Fergus, et al. “Learning multiagent communication with back- propagation”. In: Advances in neural information processing systems 29 (2016)

    2016

  137. [144]

    Multi-agent motion planning from signal temporal logic specifications

    Dawei Sun, Jingkai Chen, Sayan Mitra, and Chuchu Fan. “Multi-agent motion planning from signal temporal logic specifications”. In: IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 7.2 (2022), pp. 3451–3458

    2022

  138. [145]

    Reinforcement learning: An introduction

    Richard S Sutton, Andrew G Barto, et al. Reinforcement learning: An introduction. Vol. 1

  139. [146]

    MIT press Cambridge, 1998

    1998

  140. [147]

    Temporal credit assignment in reinforcement learning

    Richard Stuart Sutton. Temporal credit assignment in reinforcement learning. University of Massachusetts Amherst, 1984

    1984

  141. [148]

    Research advance in swarm robotics

    Ying Tan and Zhong-yang Zheng. “Research advance in swarm robotics”. In: Defence Tech- nology 9.1 (2013), pp. 18–39

    2013

  142. [149]

    World models and predictive coding for cognitive and developmental robotics: frontiers and challenges

    Tadahiro Taniguchi, Shingo Murata, Masahiro Suzuki, Dimitri Ognibene, Pablo Lanillos, Emre Ugur, Lorenzo Jamone, Tomoaki Nakamura, Alejandra Ciria, Bruno Lara, et al. “World models and predictive coding for cognitive and developmental robotics: frontiers and challenges”. In: A...

    2023

  143. [150]

    Decentralized multi-agent planning using model predictive control and time-aware safe corridors

    Charbel Toumieh and Alain Lambert. “Decentralized multi-agent planning using model predictive control and time-aware safe corridors”. In:IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 7.4 (2022), pp. 11110–11117

    2022

  144. [151]

    Generative AI-Driven Distributed Cybersecu- rity Frameworks for AI-Integrated Global Big Data Systems

    Rahul Vadisetty and Anand Polamarasetti. “Generative AI-Driven Distributed Cybersecu- rity Frameworks for AI-Integrated Global Big Data Systems”. In: 2024 International Con- ference on Emerging Technologies and Innovation for Sustainability (EmergIN). IEEE. 2024, pp. 595–600

    2024

  145. [152]

    Leveraging demon- strations for deep reinforcement learning on robotics problems with sparse rewards

    Mel Vecerik, Todd Hester, Jonathan Scholz, Fumin Wang, Olivier Pietquin, Bilal Piot, Nico- las Heess, Thomas Roth¨ orl, Thomas Lampe, and Martin Riedmiller. “Leveraging demon- strations for deep reinforcement learning on robotics problems with sparse rewards”. In: arXiv prepri...

    2017 arXiv

  146. [153]

    An adaptive multiagent approach to protection relay coordination with distributed generators in industrial power distribution system

    Hui Wan, KK Li, and KP Wong. “An adaptive multiagent approach to protection relay coordination with distributed generators in industrial power distribution system”. In: IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications 46.5 (2010), pp. 2118–2124

    2010

  147. [154]

    Ego-centric Learning of Communicative World Models for Autonomous Driving

    Hang Wang, Dechen Gao, and Junshan Zhang. “Ego-centric Learning of Communicative World Models for Autonomous Driving”. In: arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.08149 (2025). 28

    2025 arXiv

  148. [155]

    Distributed and hierarchical neural encoding of multidimensional biological motion attributes in the human brain

    Ruidi Wang, Xiqian Lu, and Yi Jiang. “Distributed and hierarchical neural encoding of multidimensional biological motion attributes in the human brain”. In: Cerebral Cortex 33.13 (2023), pp. 8510–8522

    2023

  149. [156]

    Benchmarking model- based reinforcement learning

    Tingwu Wang, Xuchan Bao, Ignasi Clavera, Jerrick Hoang, Yeming Wen, Eric Langlois, Shunshi Zhang, Guodong Zhang, Pieter Abbeel, and Jimmy Ba. “Benchmarking model- based reinforcement learning”. In: arXiv:1907.02057 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  150. [157]

    A proactive decision support method based on deep reinforcement learning and state partition

    Yongheng Wang, Shaofeng Geng, and Hui Gao. “A proactive decision support method based on deep reinforcement learning and state partition”. In: Knowledge-Based Systems 143 (2018), pp. 248–258

    2018

  151. [159]

    Leveraging World Model Disentanglement in Value-Based Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning

    Zhizun Wang and David Meger. “Leveraging World Model Disentanglement in Value-Based Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning”. In: arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.04615 (2023)

    2023

  152. [160]

    Design principles for generative AI applications

    Justin D Weisz, Jessica He, Michael Muller, Gabriela Hoefer, Rachel Miles, and Werner Geyer. “Design principles for generative AI applications”. In: Proceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 2024, pp. 1–22

    2024

  153. [161]

    Toward general design principles for generative AI applications

    Justin D Weisz, Michael Muller, Jessica He, and Stephanie Houde. “Toward general design principles for generative AI applications”. In: arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.05578 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  154. [162]

    On efficiency in hierarchical reinforcement learning

    Zheng Wen, Doina Precup, Morteza Ibrahimi, Andre Barreto, Benjamin Van Roy, and Satin- der Singh. “On efficiency in hierarchical reinforcement learning”. In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33 (2020), pp. 6708–6718

    2020

  155. [163]

    Is independent learning all you need in the starcraft multi-agent challenge?

    Christian Schroeder de Witt, Tarun Gupta, Denys Makoviichuk, Viktor Makoviychuk, Philip HS Torr, Mingfei Sun, and Shimon Whiteson. “Is independent learning all you need in the starcraft multi-agent challenge?” In: arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.09533 (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  156. [164]

    Emergent behav- iors in mixed-autonomy traffic

    Cathy Wu, Aboudy Kreidieh, Eugene Vinitsky, and Alexandre M Bayen. “Emergent behav- iors in mixed-autonomy traffic”. In: Conference on Robot Learning. PMLR. 2017, pp. 398– 407

    2017

  157. [165]

    Toward human-vehicle collaboration: Review and perspectives on human-centered collaborative automated driving

    Yang Xing, Chen Lv, Dongpu Cao, and Peng Hang. “Toward human-vehicle collaboration: Review and perspectives on human-centered collaborative automated driving”. In: Trans- portation research part C: emerging technologies 128 (2021), p. 103199

    2021

  158. [166]

    Generative AI-empowered simulation for autonomous driving in vehicular mixed reality metaverses

    Minrui Xu, Dusit Niyato, Junlong Chen, Hongliang Zhang, Jiawen Kang, Zehui Xiong, Shiwen Mao, and Zhu Han. “Generative AI-empowered simulation for autonomous driving in vehicular mixed reality metaverses”. In:IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing 17.5 (2023), pp...

    2023

  159. [167]

    Mingling Fore- sight with Imagination: Model-Based Cooperative Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning

    Zhiwei Xu, Bin Zhang, Yuan Zhan, Yunpeng Baiia, Guoliang Fan, et al. “Mingling Fore- sight with Imagination: Model-Based Cooperative Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning”. In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35 (2022), pp. 11327–11340

    2022

  160. [168]

    An overview of multi-agent reinforcement learning from game theoretical perspective

    Yaodong Yang and Jun Wang. “An overview of multi-agent reinforcement learning from game theoretical perspective”. In: arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.00583 (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  161. [169]

    The surprising effectiveness of ppo in cooperative multi-agent games

    Chao Yu, Akash Velu, Eugene Vinitsky, Jiaxuan Gao, Yu Wang, Alexandre Bayen, and Yi Wu. “The surprising effectiveness of ppo in cooperative multi-agent games”. In: Advances in neural information processing systems 35 (2022), pp. 24611–24624. 29

    2022

  162. [170]

    Generative multi-agent behav- ioral cloning

    Eric Zhan, Stephan Zheng, Yisong Yue, and Patrick Lucey. “Generative multi-agent behav- ioral cloning”. In: arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.07612 2 (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  163. [171]

    Coordinating multi-agent reinforcement learning with limited communication

    Chongjie Zhang and Victor Lesser. “Coordinating multi-agent reinforcement learning with limited communication”. In:Proceedings of the 2013 international conference on Autonomous agents and multi-agent systems . 2013, pp. 1101–1108

    2013

  164. [172]

    COMBO: Compositional World Models for Embodied Multi- Agent Cooperation

    Hongxin Zhang, Zeyuan Wang, Qiushi Lyu, Zheyuan Zhang, Sunli Chen, Tianmin Shu, Yilun Du, and Chuang Gan. “COMBO: Compositional World Models for Embodied Multi- Agent Cooperation”. In: CoRR abs/2404.10775 (2024). doi: 10.48550/ARXIV.2404.10775. arXiv: 2404.10775. url: https://...

    2024 doi arXiv

  165. [173]

    Leader-based optimal coordination control for the consensus problem of multiagent differential games via fuzzy adaptive dynamic programming

    Huaguang Zhang, Jilie Zhang, Guang-Hong Yang, and Yanhong Luo. “Leader-based optimal coordination control for the consensus problem of multiagent differential games via fuzzy adaptive dynamic programming”. In: IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems 23.1 (2014), pp. 152–163

    2014

  166. [174]

    Multi-agent reinforcement learning: A selective overview of theories and algorithms

    Kaiqing Zhang, Zhuoran Yang, and Tamer Ba¸ sar. “Multi-agent reinforcement learning: A selective overview of theories and algorithms”. In: Handbook of reinforcement learning and control (2021), pp. 321–384

    2021

  167. [175]

    Llm as a mastermind: A survey of strategic reasoning with large language models

    Yadong Zhang, Shaoguang Mao, Tao Ge, Xun Wang, Adrian de Wynter, Yan Xia, Wenshan Wu, Ting Song, Man Lan, and Furu Wei. “Llm as a mastermind: A survey of strategic reasoning with large language models”. In: arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.01230 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  168. [176]

    Multi-agent tensor fusion for contextual trajectory prediction

    Tianyang Zhao, Yifei Xu, Mathew Monfort, Wongun Choi, Chris Baker, Yibiao Zhao, Yizhou Wang, and Ying Nian Wu. “Multi-agent tensor fusion for contextual trajectory prediction”. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition . 2019, pp. 12...

    2019

  169. [177]

    Genad: Gen- erative end-to-end autonomous driving

    Wenzhao Zheng, Ruiqi Song, Xianda Guo, Chenming Zhang, and Long Chen. “Genad: Gen- erative end-to-end autonomous driving”. In: European Conference on Computer Vision . Springer. 2024, pp. 87–104

    2024

  170. [178]

    A survey of multi-agent deep reinforce- ment learning with communication

    Changxi Zhu, Mehdi Dastani, and Shihan Wang. “A survey of multi-agent deep reinforce- ment learning with communication”. In: Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 38.1 (2024), p. 4

    2024

  171. [179]

    A survey of multi-agent reinforcement learning with communication

    Changxi Zhu, Mehdi Dastani, and Shihan Wang. “A survey of multi-agent reinforcement learning with communication”. In: arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.08975 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  172. [180]

    Bridging imagination and reality for model-based deep reinforcement learning

    Guangxiang Zhu, Minghao Zhang, Honglak Lee, and Chongjie Zhang. “Bridging imagination and reality for model-based deep reinforcement learning”. In: Advances in Neural Informa- tion Processing Systems 33 (2020), pp. 8993–9006. 30

    2020

Pith tools

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