pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.19920 · v1 · pith:SOQ7YRZEnew · submitted 2026-06-18 · 💻 cs.RO · cs.LG· cs.MA

Deep-Unfolded Coordination

Hunter Kuperman , Minchan Jung , Rahul V. Ghosh , Alex Oshin , Evangelos A. Theodorou This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-26 17:03 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.RO cs.LGcs.MA
keywords deep unfoldingADMM-DDPdistributed optimizationmulti-agent roboticshyperparameter tuningpenalty parametersunsupervised learningtrajectory optimization
0
0 comments X

The pith

A deep-unfolded network learns to adjust ADMM-DDP penalty parameters at solve time for faster multi-agent robotics optimization.

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

The paper proposes Deep Coordinator, which unrolls a fixed number of ADMM-DDP iterations into a neural network whose layers learn to map the current optimizer state to updated penalty parameters. This allows dynamic hyperparameter adjustment during the solve for non-convex distributed optimization problems in robotics. Traditional methods require specialized tuning that is problem-specific and time-consuming, so an approach that learns this adaptation unsupervised could make distributed solvers more practical. The authors show that supervised training leads to degenerate solutions, so they introduce an unsupervised scheme instead. On car and quadrotor fleet simulations, this yields trajectories of similar quality but 6.18 to 9.44 times faster, and the method generalizes to systems eight times larger than those used in training.

Core claim

Deep Coordinator is the first deep-unfolding framework to adapt the penalty parameters of a non-convex optimizer at solve-time by unrolling ADMM-DDP iterations into a network with learnable functions between layers that map optimizer state to next hyperparameters, trained via an unsupervised scheme to avoid degenerates, resulting in comparable quality trajectories at 6.18-9.44x the speed of conventional solvers and retaining benefits on systems up to 8x larger.

What carries the argument

The unrolled ADMM-DDP network with learnable mappings from optimizer state to penalty parameters, trained unsupervised.

If this is right

  • Produces trajectories of comparable quality 6.18-9.44x faster than conventional solvers
  • Retains performance benefits when deployed to systems up to 8x larger than trained on
  • Avoids degenerate solutions that arise under mainstream supervised training
  • Enables dynamic adjustment of hyperparameters for non-convex ADMM-DDP at solve-time

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The learned adaptation could extend to other distributed optimizers used in logistics or sensor networks.
  • Real-time hardware deployment might gain further from the method in changing environments where fixed tuning fails.
  • The unsupervised scheme could inspire similar training for other non-convex solvers where good labels are unavailable.

Load-bearing premise

The unsupervised learning scheme successfully avoids the degenerate solutions that arise under mainstream supervised training.

What would settle it

Running the Deep Coordinator on a fleet of 16 quadrotors and checking whether solve times stay below one-sixth of the conventional solver while trajectory costs remain within 10 percent would test the scaling and speedup claims.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.19920 by Alex Oshin, Evangelos A. Theodorou, Hunter Kuperman, Minchan Jung, Rahul V. Ghosh.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Wall-clock time of Deep Coordinator trained on smaller-scale systems but deployed to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The Deep Coordinator architecture. Our framework unfolds ADMM-DDP iterations into [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Top: Results of the car obstacle field task on 20 unseen test instances. Error bars indicate standard deviation. Bottom: Trajectories of 15 vehicles performing the car obstacle field task gen￾erated by Deep Coordinator, with snapshots from different timesteps. Car Intersection. We second study a more complex intersection task where 8 Dubins vehicles must navigate a four-way junction. The initial and target… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Top: Results of car intersection tasks on 20 unseen test instances. Error bars indicate standard deviation. Bottom: Trajectories of 8 vehicles performing the car intersection task generated by Deep Coordinator, with snapshots from different timesteps. Quadrotor Obstacle Field. We third examine a quadrotor maneuvering problem where teams of 10 quadrotors navigate a field of 7 cylindrical obstacles. To maxim… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Top: Results of quadrotor obstacle field tasks on 20 unseen test instances. Error bars indicate standard deviation. Bottom: Trajectories of 10 quadrotors performing the obstacle field task generated by Deep Coordinator, with snapshots from different timesteps. For each task, we evaluate the cost, maximum constraint violation, and wall-clock time of all models on 20 unseen test problems, and average the res… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Deployment results as the number of agents scales. For each task type and scaling factor, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: A comparison of the loss function (solid blue) and objective function (dashed red) in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparison of cost and constraint values generated by policies trained under different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Sample output from unsupervised LS policy at each iteration. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Sample output from unsupervised LSPI at each iteration. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Sample output from unsupervised LSTM policy at each iteration. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Car obstacle field scaling experiments. Deep Coordinator trained on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Car intersection scaling experiments. Deep Coordinator trained on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Quadrotor obstacle field scaling experiments. Deep Coordinator trained on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Results of the car obstacle field task over time on 20 unseen test instances. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Results of the car intersection task over time on 20 unseen test instances. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_16.png] view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Results of the quadrotor obstacle field task over time on 20 unseen test instances. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_17.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Distributed optimization is a highly scalable and structurally transparent technique to solve multi-agent robotics problems; however, such methods often suffer from the need for highly-specialized, problem-specific hyperparameter tunings. In this work, we propose Deep Coordinator, a deep-unfolding framework that learns to dynamically adjust the hyperparameters of ADMM-DDP, a popular distributed solver for robotics tasks, at solve-time in response to optimizer performance. Our architecture consists of unrolling a fixed number of ADMM-DDP iterations into a neural network with learnable functions between layers mapping the optimizer state to the next hyperparameters. To the best of our knowledge, Deep Coordinator is the first deep-unfolding framework to adapt the penalty parameters of a non-convex optimizer at solve-time; we show that the mainstream supervised approach can yield degenerate solutions when training such models, and propose an unsupervised learning scheme. On simulations with fleets of cars and quadrotors, Deep Coordinator produces trajectories of comparable quality 6.18-9.44x faster than conventional solvers. Furthermore, Deep Coordinator retains its performance benefits when deployed to systems up to 8x larger than trained on.

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

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes Deep Coordinator, a deep-unfolding architecture that unrolls a fixed number of ADMM-DDP iterations into a neural network whose layers contain learnable mappings from optimizer state to penalty parameters. It argues that supervised training of such mappings produces degenerates and therefore introduces an unsupervised objective; empirical results on car and quadrotor fleets claim 6.18-9.44× speed-ups at comparable trajectory quality together with retention of the benefit on instances up to 8× larger than the training distribution.

Significance. If the unsupervised objective demonstrably prevents collapse to trivial penalty schedules, the work would offer a practical route to automating hyper-parameter selection inside non-convex distributed solvers, thereby lowering the barrier to deploying ADMM-DDP on larger multi-agent robotics problems.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and §4] The central performance claims rest on the unsupervised scheme producing non-degenerate, state-dependent penalty schedules. No section, figure, or table in the manuscript provides direct evidence (e.g., variance of learned penalties across iterations, comparison of learned vs. constant schedules, or an ablation removing the unsupervised term) that the learned mappings avoid the collapse described in the abstract.
  2. [§4] Table 2 (or equivalent results table): the reported 6.18-9.44× speed-ups are presented without error bars or statistical tests; it is therefore impossible to determine whether the observed gains are distinguishable from the fixed-hyperparameter ADMM-DDP baseline once the unsupervised objective is removed.
minor comments (2)
  1. [§3] Notation for the state-to-penalty mapping functions is introduced without an explicit equation; a compact definition (e.g., Eq. (X)) would improve readability.
  2. [§4.3] The generalization experiments to 8× larger systems are described only qualitatively; a table listing training vs. test sizes and corresponding speed-up ratios would strengthen the claim.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments highlighting the need for stronger empirical support of the unsupervised objective and statistical validation of the reported speed-ups. We address each point below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and §4] The central performance claims rest on the unsupervised scheme producing non-degenerate, state-dependent penalty schedules. No section, figure, or table in the manuscript provides direct evidence (e.g., variance of learned penalties across iterations, comparison of learned vs. constant schedules, or an ablation removing the unsupervised term) that the learned mappings avoid the collapse described in the abstract.

    Authors: We agree that the manuscript would benefit from explicit visualizations and ablations to directly demonstrate that the unsupervised objective yields non-degenerate, state-dependent schedules. While the text states that supervised training produces degenerates and motivates the unsupervised scheme, we did not include the requested figures or ablation. In revision we will add (i) a plot of learned penalty variance across iterations and states, (ii) a comparison against constant-penalty baselines, and (iii) an ablation removing the unsupervised term, all placed in §4. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§4] Table 2 (or equivalent results table): the reported 6.18-9.44× speed-ups are presented without error bars or statistical tests; it is therefore impossible to determine whether the observed gains are distinguishable from the fixed-hyperparameter ADMM-DDP baseline once the unsupervised objective is removed.

    Authors: The speed-up numbers are averages computed over repeated simulation trials, yet we acknowledge the absence of error bars and formal statistical tests. We will revise Table 2 to report standard deviations and include paired t-test p-values comparing Deep Coordinator against the fixed-hyperparameter baseline, thereby clarifying whether the gains remain significant when the unsupervised term is considered. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: empirical speedups and generalization are measured against external baselines, not defined by the training scheme itself.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are performance measurements (6.18-9.44x faster trajectories of comparable quality, retained on 8x larger systems) obtained by running the trained Deep Coordinator against conventional ADMM-DDP solvers on car and quadrotor fleets. The unsupervised objective is introduced to avoid degenerate mappings noted under supervised training, but the reported results are obtained by direct comparison on held-out simulation instances and do not reduce to quantities defined inside the same equations or by self-citation. No load-bearing step equates a prediction to a fitted input by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The claim rests on the assumption that a fixed unrolling depth plus learned state-to-parameter mappings can meaningfully improve a non-convex distributed solver, plus the empirical claim that unsupervised training avoids degeneracy. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • neural network weights for state-to-hyperparameter mappings
    The learnable functions inside each unrolled layer are fitted during training; their values determine the runtime adaptation behavior.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption ADMM-DDP iterations can be unrolled into a fixed-depth computational graph without losing essential solver behavior
    The architecture explicitly unrolls a fixed number of iterations into network layers.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5736 in / 1335 out tokens · 33299 ms · 2026-06-26T17:03:29.729615+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Ferraro, V

    A. Ferraro, V . Nardi, E. D’Amato, I. Notaro, and V . Scordamaglia. Multi-drone systems for search and rescue operations: problems, technical solutions and open issues. In2023 IEEE International Workshop on Technologies for Defense and Security (TechDefense), pages 159– 164, 2023. doi:10.1109/TechDefense59795.2023.10380859

    work page doi:10.1109/techdefense59795.2023.10380859 2023

  2. [2]

    E. Tuci, M. H. M. Alkilabi, and O. Akanyeti. Cooperative object transport in multi-robot systems: A review of the state-of-the-art.Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 5, May 2018. ISSN 2296-9144. doi:10.3389/frobt.2018.00059. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.3389/frobt. 2018.00059

    work page doi:10.3389/frobt.2018.00059 2018

  3. [3]

    M. Hua, X. Qi, D. Chen, K. Jiang, Z. E. Liu, H. Sun, Q. Zhou, and H. Xu. Multi-agent reinforcement learning for connected and automated vehicles control: Recent advancements and future prospects.IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering, 22:16266– 16286, 2025. doi:10.1109/TASE.2025.3574280

    work page doi:10.1109/tase.2025.3574280 2025

  4. [4]

    Zhang, Z

    K. Zhang, Z. Yang, and T. Basar. Multi-agent reinforcement learning: A selective overview of theories and algorithms.CoRR, abs/1911.10635, 2019. URLhttp://arxiv.org/abs/ 1911.10635

    arXiv 1911

  5. [5]

    Y . Li, S. Zhang, J. Sun, Y . Du, Y . Wen, X. Wang, and W. Pan. Cooperative open-ended learning framework for zero-shot coordination, 2024. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2302.04831

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    C. Sun, S. Huang, and D. Pompili. Llm-based multi-agent reinforcement learning: Current and future directions, 2024. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2405.11106

    arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    A. D. Saravanos, Y . Aoyama, H. Zhu, and E. A. Theodorou. Distributed differential dynamic programming architectures for large-scale multiagent control.IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 39(6):4387–4407, Dec. 2023. doi:10.1109/TRO.2023.3319894. URLhttps://doi.org/ 10.1109/TRO.2023.3319894

    work page doi:10.1109/tro.2023.3319894 2023

  8. [8]

    S. Boyd, N. Parikh, E. Chu, B. Peleato, and J. Eckstein. Distributed optimization and statis- tical learning via the alternating direction method of multipliers.F oundations and Trends in Machine Learning, 3:1–122, Jan. 2011. doi:10.1561/2200000016

    work page doi:10.1561/2200000016 2011

  9. [9]

    D. Mayne. A second-order gradient method for determining optimal trajectories of non- linear discrete-time systems.International Journal of Control, 3(1):85–95, Jan. 1966. ISSN 1366-5820. doi:10.1080/00207176608921369. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 00207176608921369

    work page doi:10.1080/00207176608921369 1966

  10. [10]

    Monga, Y

    V . Monga, Y . Li, and Y . Eldar. Algorithm unrolling: Interpretable, efficient deep learning for signal and image processing.IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, 38:18–44, 03 2021. doi: 10.1109/MSP.2020.3016905. 10

    work page doi:10.1109/msp.2020.3016905 2021

  11. [11]

    A. D. Saravanos, H. Kuperman, A. Oshin, A. T. Abdul, V . Pacelli, and E. Theodorou. Deep dis- tributed optimization for large-scale quadratic programming. InThe Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2025. URLhttps://openreview.net/forum? id=hzuumhfYSO

    2025

  12. [12]

    Noah and N

    Y . Noah and N. Shlezinger. Distributed Learn-to-Optimize: Limited Communications Op- timization Over Networks via Deep Unfolded Distributed ADMM.IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, 24(4):3012–3024, Apr. 2025. ISSN 2161-9875. doi:10.1109/tmc.2024. 3502574. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TMC.2024.3502574

    work page doi:10.1109/tmc.2024 2025

  13. [13]

    Lupu and I

    D. Lupu and I. Necoara. Deep unfolding projected first order methods-based architectures: application to linear model predictive control. In2023 European Control Conference (ECC), page 1–6. IEEE, June 2023. doi:10.23919/ecc57647.2023.10178167. URLhttp://dx.doi. org/10.23919/ECC57647.2023.10178167

    work page doi:10.23919/ecc57647.2023.10178167 2023

  14. [14]

    S. G. Krantz and H. R. Parks.The Implicit Function Theorem. Birkh ¨auser Boston, 2003. ISBN 9781461200598. doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-0059-8. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10. 1007/978-1-4612-0059-8

    work page doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-0059-8 2003

  15. [15]

    Doerks, P

    H. Doerks, P. H ¨ausner, D. H. Escobar, and J. Sj ¨olund. Learning to accelerate distributed ADMM using graph neural networks.arXiv:2509.05288, 2025. URLhttps://arxiv.org/ abs/2509.05288

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  16. [16]

    Stellato, G

    B. Stellato, G. Banjac, P. Goulart, A. Bemporad, and S. Boyd. OSQP: An operator split- ting solver for quadratic programs.Mathematical Programming Computation, 12(4):637–672, 2020

    2020

  17. [17]

    B. Wang, Y . Gao, T. Sun, and L. Zhao. Learning to Coordinate: Distributed Meta-Trajectory Optimization Via Differentiable ADMM-DDP.arXiv:2509.01630, 2025. URLhttps:// arxiv.org/abs/2509.01630

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  18. [18]

    Sambharya and B

    R. Sambharya and B. Stellato. Learning algorithm hyperparameters for fast parametric convex optimization.arXiv:2411.15717, 2024. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2411.15717

    arXiv 2024

  19. [19]

    A. G. Baydin, B. A. Pearlmutter, A. A. Radul, and J. M. Siskind. Automatic differentiation in machine learning: a survey.Journal of Machine Learning Research, 18(1):5595–5637, Jan

  20. [20]

    Hochreiter and J

    S. Hochreiter and J. Schmidhuber. Long short-term memory.Neural Computation, 9(8):1735– 1780, 1997

    1997

  21. [21]

    Oshin, H

    A. Oshin, H. Almubarak, and E. A. Theodorou. Differentiable robust model predictive control. InProceedings of Robotics: Science and Systems, Delft, Netherlands, July 2024. doi:10.15607/ RSS.2024.XX.003

    2024

  22. [22]

    W. Jin, Z. Wang, Z. Yang, and S. Mou. Pontryagin differentiable programming: an end-to- end learning and control framework. In34th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, Dec. 2020. ISBN 9781713829546

    2020

  23. [23]

    W. Jin, S. Mou, and G. J. Pappas. Safe Pontryagin differentiable programming.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34:16034–16050, 2021

    2021

  24. [24]

    Sabatino

    F. Sabatino. Quadrotor control: Modeling, nonlinear control design, and simulation. Master’s thesis, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, 2015

    2015

  25. [25]

    Loshchilov and F

    I. Loshchilov and F. Hutter. Decoupled weight decay regularization.arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.05101, 2017. 11 A Detailed Description of the ADMM-DDP Subproblems In this appendix, we provide the mathematical breakdown of each subproblem of ADMM-DDP. Subproblem 1.For each agenti= 1, ..., N, we solve xa+1 i ,u a+1 i = argmin {xi,ui} T−1X t=0 ˆℓi,t(xi,t,u i,t)...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  26. [26]

    Independently adapt each element of the penalty vectorsρ a ∈R N×(T+1)×n x andµ a ∈ RN×T×n u, and

  27. [27]

    The second property not only increases the flexibility of the trained optimizer, but also allows models to be trained on smaller problems then deployed to much larger ones

    Deploy to problems with longer time horizons and larger or different graph topologies underlying the agents than trained on The first property allows for policies that capture complex relationships between hyperparameters that would be impossible to represent with simpler schemes (e.g., re-scaling a fixed vector). The second property not only increases th...

  28. [28]

    Predict hyperparameters via θa =π wa(θa−1,v a−1,χ)(12)

  29. [29]

    Solve Subproblem 1 for dynamically-feasible trajectories via za = (xa,u a,y a) =DDP(s a),(13) wherey a are the Lagrange multipliers for the dynamics constraints ands a = (˜za−1,ζ a−1,θ a)collects all inputs to Subproblem 1 at iterationa

  30. [30]

    Solve Subproblem 2 for safe trajectories via ˜za = (˜xa, ˜ua, ˜ya) =NLP( ˜sa),(14) where ˜ya are the Lagrange multipliers for the safety constraints and ˜sa = (z a,ζ a−1,θ a) collects all inputs to Subproblem 2 at iterationa

  31. [31]

    Our goal is to compute the hypergradient∇ wLto train the feedback policies via gradient descent

    Update dual variables via ζa =ζ a−1 +θ a ⊙((x a,u a)−( ˜xa, ˜ua)).(15) AfterKiterations, the final iteratev K = (z K, ˜zK,ζ K)is used to compute the task lossL(v K). Our goal is to compute the hypergradient∇ wLto train the feedback policies via gradient descent. Throughout the derivation, we use df dx to denote the total derivative, which includes both di...

    arXiv