Title: The Dormant Neuron Phenomenon in Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning Value Factorization
Venue: NeurIPS 2024
Accepted: yes
Keywords: dormant neurons; Multi-agent reinforcement learning
Abstract: In this work, we study the dormant neuron phenomenon in multi-agent reinforcement learning value factorization, where the mixing network suffers from reduced network expressivity caused by an increasing number of inactive neurons. We demonstrate the presence of the dormant neuron phenomenon across multiple environments and algorithms, and show that this phenomenon negatively affects the learning process. We show that dormant neurons correlates with the existence of over-active neurons, which have large activation scores. To address the dormant neuron issue, we propose ReBorn, a simple but effective method that transfers the weights from over-active neurons to dormant neurons. We theoretically show that this method can ensure the learned action preferences are not forgotten after the weight-transferring procedure, which increases learning effectiveness. Our extensive experiments reveal that ReBorn achieves promising results across various environments and improves the performance of multiple popular value factorization approaches. The source code of ReBorn is available in \url{https://github.com/xmu-rl-3dv/ReBorn}.

The Dormant Neuron Phenomenon in Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning Value Factorization

Abstract

In this work, we study the dormant neuron phenomenon in multi-agent reinforcement learning value factorization, where the mixing network suffers from reduced network expressivity caused by an increasing number of inactive neurons. We demonstrate the presence of the dormant neuron phenomenon across multiple environments and algorithms, and show that this phenomenon negatively affects the learning process. We show that dormant neurons correlates with the existence of over-active neurons, which have large activation scores. To address the dormant neuron issue, we propose ReBorn, a simple but effective method that transfers the weights from over-active neurons to dormant neurons. We theoretically show that this method can ensure the learned action preferences are not forgotten after the weight-transferring procedure, which increases learning effectiveness. Our extensive experiments reveal that ReBorn achieves promising results across various environments and improves the performance of multiple popular value factorization approaches. The source code of ReBorn is available in https://github.com/xmu-rl-3dv/ReBorn.

1 Introduction

In cooperative Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning (MARL) [1], a group of agents whose value function is approximated using deep neural networks must cooperate to achieve a common goal. Deep neural network is the key driving force that scales MARL for complex decision-making tasks [2]. Recently, researchers have discovered the scaling laws that deep neural network models can increase their capacity by enlarging the size of the model and the dataset. However, single-agent reinforcement learning does not obey the scaling law and suffers from network expressivity issues [3, 4].

To alleviate the network expressivity issues in single-agent RL, researchers have proposed parameter perturbing methods. Igl et al. [5] periodically resets some layers of the value network. ReSet [6] resets the last few layers of the neural network while maintaining experience in the replay buffer. ReDo [4] periodically re-initializes the input weights of some neurons and zero out the neuron's output weights. Albeit these methods can improve the performance of single-agent reinforcement learning, it is unclear whether they work for MARL.

Compared to single-agent RL, MARL is more challenging, including issues such as partialobservability [7] and the non-stationary of other learning agents' policies. The Centralized Training with Decentralized Execution (CTDE) paradigm [8] is widely adopted in this context. In CTDE, it is a common practice to use value factorization [2, 9], which factorizes a joint state-action value function Q tot into individual agent utilities Q i . Each agent acts according to Q i , which is approximated using a deep neural network, named the agent network . Q i are mixed through a neural network, the mixing network , to form joint value function Q tot .

In this work, we explore the reasons behind the reduction in network expressivity issues in cooperative MARL. Specifically, we study dormant neurons [4], which remain inactive with low activation levels during learning. We demonstrate that the dormant neuron phenomenon, the number of dormant neurons increases during the training process, exists in multiple popular value-based MARL algorithms (QMIX [2], QPLEX [10], DMIX [11], and RMIX [12]) across various environments (e.g., SMAC [13], SMACv2 [14], predator prey [15]). We find that the proportion of dormant neurons increases with the number of agents, and that dormant neurons mainly exist in the mixing network. Moreover, we identify the existence of over-active neurons , whose activation score accounts for a significant portion of the activation scores for all the neurons.

Typical network parameter perturbing approaches used in single-agent RL (such as Reset [5, 6] and ReDo [4]) do not work efficiently in MARL. Parameter perturbing methods, which change the weights of neurons, may lead to forgetting of learned knowledge, especially in MARL with high cooperation demands. The cooperation knowledge should not be forgotten even after parameter perturbation. We formulate a memorization requirement that the learned cooperative action preferences remain unchanged after parameter perturbation as the Knowledge Invariant (KI) principle . We theoretically show that existing approaches [5, 6, 4] cannot guarantee adherence to the KI principle. Failing to satisfy the KI principle can lead to the violation of the Individual-Global-Max (IGM) principle, which is widely adopted in MARL.

We propose, ReBorn , a simple but effective method that transfers the weights from over-active neurons to dormant neurons. It periodically detects dormant and over-active neurons, and balances the weights among them. We theoretically show that ReBorn satisfies the KI principle for various value factorization approaches (e.g., QMIX and QPLEX), distributional value factorization approaches (i.e., DMIX and DDN [11]), and risk-sensitive value factorization approach (i.e., RMIX [12]). Through extensive experiments, we demonstrate that ReBorn can improve the performance of multiple MARL value factorization methods, and it performs better than multiple parameter perturbing methods by effectively remembering previously learned knowledge.

2 Background

2.1 Dec-POMDPs

We consider Decentralized Partially Observable Markov Decision Processes (Dec-POMDPs) [16] in modeling cooperative multi-agent reinforcement learning (MARL) scenarios. A Dec-POMDP can be defined by a tuple G = ⟨S , {U i } N i =1 , P, r, {O i } N i =1 , { σ i } N i =1 , N, γ ⟩ , where N is the set of agents, S is the states set, and U i is the action set for agent i . At time step t , each agent i chooses an action u t i , forming a joint action u t , leading to a state transition s t +1 ∼ P ( ·| s t , u t ) and a joint reward r t . In consideration of partial observability, each agent can only make decisions based on its local observation o t i ∼ σ i ( ·| s t ) ∈ O i . Each agent i act according to its individual policy π i ( u i | τ i ) based on its local action-observation history τ i = ( O i × U i ) ∗ , forming a joint policy π = < π 1 , . . . , π N > . The joint policy π has a joint action-value function: Q π ( s t , u t ) = E s t +1: ∞ , u t +1: ∞ [ R t | s t , u t ] , where R t = ∑ ∞ i =0 γ i r t + i is the discounted return, γ is the discounting factor.

2.2 Value Function Factorization

In value factorization methods [17, 2, 9, 10, 18], per-agent utilities Q i is approximated using the agent network , and they are mixed through the mixer network to form the joint state-action value function Q tot . For value factorization, the Individual-Global-Max (IGM) principle [9] is a critical criterion that ensure the consistency between local and joint optimal action selections. It is defined as follows:

Definition 1 (IGM [9]) . For a joint state-action value function Q jt : T N ×U N ↦→ R , where τ ∈ T N is a joint action-observation history and u is the joint action, if there exists individual state-action functions [ Q i : T i ×U i ↦→ R ] N i =1 , such that the following conditions are satisfied

then, we can state that [ Q i ] N i =1 satisfy IGM for Q jt under τ , or Q jt ( τ , u ) is factorized by [ Q i ( τ i , u i )] N i =1 .

2.3 The Dormant Neuron Phenomenon

Definition 2 ( α -dormant neuron [4, 19]) . Consider a fully connected layer ℓ within a neural network, where H ℓ denotes the total number of neurons in this layer. For an input distribution D , let h ℓ i ( x ) represent the activation of neuron i in layer ℓ under input x ∈ D . The normalized activation score of neuron i is defined as follows:

Then a neuron i in layer ℓ can be defined as α -dormant if its score s ℓ i ≤ α . (i.e., 0.1)

Definition 3 ( α -dormant ratio [4]) . The α -dormant ratio of a neural network ϕ can be defined as follows:

N ℓ α is the count of neurons that are α -dormant in layer ℓ , H ℓ is number of neurons in layer ℓ .

The dormant neuron phenomenon refers to the steady increase in the dormant ratio of the neural network throughout training.

3 Related Work

3.1 Value Factorization

Value factorization approaches [20] are widely adopted in MARL. These methods construct the joint state-action value function Q tot based on individual utility Q i . VDN [17] models the joint value function as the sum of individual utility function, while QMIX [2] models the monotonic increasing relationship among Q tot and Q i . Qatten [18] models the relationship through using the attention mechanism. QPLEX [10] factorizes Q tot into a value function and an advantage function. QTRAN [9] and ResQ [21] decompose the value function into easy-to-factorized forms. For distributional MARL, DMIX [11] factorizes value function through mean-shape decomposition. A few work [12, 22] explore risk-sensitive value factorization. RMIX [12] models the monotonic increasing relationship among Q tot and the CVaR measure of each agent's distributional utility. RiskQ [22] ensures that the collection of greedy selection of risk-sensitive individual actions is equal to the greedy selection of risk-sensitive joint actions.

These methods focus on modeling the representation ability and functional relationships between the joint state-action value function and individual utilities. Our work, ReBorn, is orthogonal to these approaches, can be used to improve their overall performance by reducing dormant neurons.

3.2 RL neural network expressivity

In deep reinforcement learning, neural networks tend to lose their expressive power as training progresses [3]. Various studies explore the loss of expressiveness from different perspectives and propose corresponding methods to mitigate this issue.

Lyle et al. [23] show that the instability of the target can cause the network to lose expressive ability. ReSet [6] addresses early agent experience bias by periodically resetting the last layer of the neural network. The loss of expressive ability can also be attributed to over-fitting, a phenomenon analyzed in depth by Kirk et al. [24] and Zhang et al. [25] within reinforcement learning.

400K

800K

1.2M

1.6M

2M

Environmental Steps

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Dormant Percent [%]

(a) 3s_vs_5z

400K

800K

1.2M

1.6M

2M

Environmental Steps

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Dormant Percent [%]

(b) MMM2

400K

800K

1.2M

1.6M

2M

Environmental Steps

0

20

40

60

80

Dormant Percent [%]

(c) 27m_vs_30m

100

200

300

400

500

Episode

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

MSE Loss for a Mixing Network

(a)

Number of Dormant Neurons=3

Number of Dormant Neurons=2

Number of Dormant Neurons=1

Number of Dormant Neurons=0

0.1M

0.2M

0.3M

0.4M

0.5M

Environmental Steps

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

Dormant Percent [%]

(b) MMM2

Update Interval=10

Update Interval=50

Update Interval=250

Update Interval=1000

5

10

15

20

25

NAS ranking for top-25 neurons

0

10

20

30

40

50

NAS Percentage [%]

(c) 27m_vs_30m

To enhance generalization, researchers propose network randomization [26], convolution architectures [27], and soft data augmentation [28]. Researchers [29] find that the loss of plasticity is deeply connected to changes in the curvature of the loss landscape, and plasticity injection [30] is used to enhance the learning ability of neural networks for new data. D'Oro et al. [31] and Yang et al. [32] propose Reset Replay to improve the sample efficiency. ReDo [4] discovers that dormant neurons occur due to the instability of the target in reinforcement learning. DRM [19] finds that the dormant neuron phenomenon is related to agent exploration. When the dormancy ratio is high, the agent gradually cease exploration.

ReBorn is a parameter perturbing method for MARL. It can effectively reduce the number of dormant and over-active neurons. Moreover, it ensures that learned action knowledge is not forgotten after parameter perturbation.

4 The Dormant Neuron Phenomenon in MARL

Dormant neurons mainly exist in the mixing network of MARL. To verify the existence of the dormant neuron phenomenon in MARL, we analyze the number of dormant neurons during the training of QMIX [2] and QPLEX [10] across multiple tasks in SMAC [13]. The percentage of dormant neurons are illustrated in Figure 1, presented separately for the agent and the mixing networks. We discover that the dormant neuron phenomenon primarily occurs in the mixing network of MARL. The percentage of dormant neurons the mixing network is initially high and continues to increase, while the percentage of dormant neurons in agent networks is low. This observation is consistent across various algorithms and environments as it is depicted in Appendix D.4. The number of agents in the three tasks are 3, 10, and 27, respectively. As shown in Figure 1 (a) to (c), with the increasing number of agents, the percentage of dormant neurons increases.

Dormant neurons hurt the expressive power of mixing networks. In MARL value factorization methods, the mixing network plays a crucial role in integrating individual utilities into a joint value function. As shown in [9, 20, 21], the expressive power of the mixing network significantly impacts the performance of MARL value factorization methods. The expressive power of neural networks is related to both their depth [33, 34] and width [35, 36, 37]. We study expressive power of mixing networks from the perspective of dormant neurons, We use a mixing network with 2 Multi-layer Perceptron (MLP) layers, and fit it to a simple value function. This network consists of 4 neurons, and

0.4M

0.8M

1.2M

1.6M

2.0M

Environmental Steps

0

20

40

60

80

100

Percent [%]

(a) 27m_vs_30m

Overactive-Sum

Overactive-Number

Dormant

0.4M

0.8M

1.2M

1.6M

2.0M

Environmental Steps

60

70

80

90

100

Overlap Percent [%]

(b) 27m_vs_30m

Dormant

Overactive

0.2M

0.6M

1.0M

1.4M

1.8M

Environmental Steps

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Repeated Dormant Percent [%]

(c) 27m_vs_30m

Period=0.2M

Period=0.6M

we change the number of dormant neurons from 0 to 3. As depicted in Figure 2 (a), with increasing dormant neurons, the mean square error (MSE) loss that fits the target value increases. This indicates that an increase in dormant neurons leads to reduced expressive power . Please refer to Appendix D.3 for details.

TD target non-stationarity exacerbates dormant neurons in MARL. The TD target in reinforcement learning is non-stationary[38]. In the MARL training process, target networks for mixing networks are typically used to stabilize TD targets. We study the impact of target non-stationarity by varying its update interval, where a smaller interval indicates greater non-stationarity. As analyzed in Figure 1, the dormant neuron phenomenon primarily exists in the mixing network, so we only control the target network of the mixing network, and the comparison focuses on the dormancy ratio in the mixing network. Experimental results for the QMIX method are presented in Figure 2 (b). As depicted, with a smaller update interval, the ratio of dormant neurons increases, indicating that increased non-stationarity in the target network results in a higher presence of dormant neurons in the MARL mixing network.

The presence of over-active neurons correlate with dormant neurons. Through careful inspection of the neurons during MARL network training, we observe an interesting phenomenon that has not been discovered before: some neurons exhibit very large normalized activation scores (NAS) throughout the training process. We study the percentage contribution of the average NAS of each neuron to the total average NAS of all neurons. To this end, we examine such percentage in the last layer (with 64 neurons) of QMIX's mixing network in 27m_vs_30m from SMAC. Figure 2 (c) depict the top 25 neurons which have the largest percentage. Neurons whose percentage is over 5% is depicted in red, neurons whose percentage are too low are not plotted, while the other neurons are plotted in green. The results show that most NAS are concentrated on a few neurons, while the NAS of other neurons are relatively low. We refer to these neurons with large NAS as over-active neurons, and define them as follows.

Definition 4 (over-active neuron) . A neuron i is an over-active neuron if its score s ℓ i ≥ β (i.e., 3).

In Figure 3 (a), the percentage contribution of the numbers of dormant neurons to all neurons, and the percentage contribution of the number of over-active neurons to all neurons, along with the percentage contribution of the sum of NAS for over-active neurons to the sum of NAS of all neurons, are depicted in red, blue and green, respectively. We find that, albeit there are only a few over-active neurons, their NAS takes up a large percentage of the neural network's NAS. This percentage increases steadily with the training process, correlating with the increase of dormant neurons. As the percentage of the over-active neurons' NAS continues to increase, the percentage of NAS for the other neurons decreases. We conjecture that the presence of over-active neurons impacts the existence of dormant neurons.

Dormant/Over-active neurons remain dormant/over-active . To study the impact of over-active neurons on dormant neurons, we examine the percentage of dormant/over-active neurons that remain dormant/over-active. As depicted in Figure 3 (b), there is a significant overlap among dormant/overactive neurons. The presence of over-active neurons appears to be a significant factor contributing to the dormant neuron phenomenon, which has never been considered in previous studies. We use a parameter perturbing method [4] to periodically recycle the dormant neurons. Then we depict the

: dormant neuron

:

overactive neuron

:

reborn neuron

𝒘𝑥

𝑖𝑛

𝑏𝑥

𝒘𝑥

𝑜𝑢𝑡

⋮

⋮

𝛽𝑖𝒘𝑥

𝑖𝑛

(1/𝛽𝑖 )𝛼 𝑖𝒘𝑥

𝑜𝑢𝑡

⋮

⋮

⋮

⋮

𝒘𝑖

𝑖𝑛

𝑏𝑖

𝒘𝑖

𝑜𝑢𝑡

⋮

⋮

⋮

⋮

𝑹𝒆𝑩𝒐𝒓𝒏

𝛼𝑖 ∈

0,1 , 𝛽

𝑖

∈ [0.5,1.5]

M Randomly selected dormant neurons

input weight

input weight

output weight

input weight

output weight

output weight

input bias

input bias

input bias

percentage of dormant neurons that re-enter dormancy within 0.2 Million steps and 0.6 Million steps in Figure 3 (c). As it is depicted in the Figure, there is still a significant overlap among dormant neurons. This indicates that parameter perturbing methods (such as Redo [4]) may not work efficiently for MARL, as it does not consider over-active neurons. We conjecture that this may be due to the fact that methods developed for single-agent RL may change the neural network weights regarding agent cooperation, which lead to forgetting learned cooperative knowledge that is encoded in neural network .

5 The ReBorn Method

In this section, we describe the Knowledge Invariant Principle, which ensures that learned action preferences do not change after perturbing neurons. We show that methods failing to satisfy this principle could lead to the violation of the individual-Global-Max (IGM) principle, which is important for MARL. Then, we present the ReBorn method, which satisfies the KI principle. It balances the weights among dormant neurons and over-active neurons for the mixing network.

5.1 Knowledge Invariant Principle

Multi-agent Reinforcement Learning suffers from the dormant neuron phenomenon and the existence of over-active neurons which make the learning process inefficient. Researchers have proposed several methods [4, 5, 6] that change the weights of neurons. However, these methods overlook the complex interactions among multi-agents, and their learned knowledge may be forgotten after perturbing neurons. We formulate the memorization requirement for learned cooperation knowledge after neuron perturbations as the Knowledge Invariant Principle , which is defined as follows.

Definition 5 (Knowledge Invariant Principle (KI)) . A joint state-action value function is represented as Q θ, ϕ tot ( τ , u ) = f θ ( Q ϕ 1 ( τ 1 , u 1 ) , ..., Q ϕ N ( τ N , u N )) , where f θ is the mixing function that mixes Q i into Q tot , τ is joint observation-action history, u = [ u 1 , ...u N ] is the joint action of multi-agent, g : R ↦→ R is a function that maps weights in θ to ˆ θ , g ( θ ) = ˆ θ . h : R ↦→ R , h ( ϕ ) = ˜ ϕ , h map the weights in ϕ to ˜ ϕ . If the following condition holds:

̸

then, the two functions g and h satisfy the Knowledge Invariant Principle for Q θ, ϕ tot , where [ Q i ( τ i , u i )] N i =1 is individual agent utility function, N is the number of agents, τ i and u i are the observation-action history and action of agent i , respectively. ∃ ! represents the concept of unique existence .

̸

Given two functions g and h which satisfy the KI principle, if we use them to change the joint state-action value function Q θ, ϕ tot to Q ˆ θ, ˜ ϕ tot ∃ ! k : u k = u ′ k , the learned knowledge that u is preferred over u ′ before applying g and h does not change after applying the two functions. With the KI principle, we show the following theorem.

Theorem 1. Parameter perturbing methods that do not satisfy the Knowledge Invariant (KI) principle cannot guarantee adherence to the Individual-Global-Max (IGM) principle.

We have theoretically shown that a parameter perturbing method that does not satisfy the KI principle could lead to the violation of the IGM principle , which is the most important principle in MARL value factorization methods [2, 9, 20, 10]. Furthermore, we theoretically show that two state-of-the-art RL parameter perturbing methods, Redo [4] and ReSet [5], do not satisfy the KI principle, as detailed in Theorem 2 and Theorem 3, respectively. These theorems and proofs are detailed in Appendix B.

5.2 ReBorn: a Weight Sharing Method among Dormant and Over-active Neurons.

To address the issues caused by the dormant neuron phenomenon and the existence of over-active neurons, which reduce network expressivity, we propose ReBorn, a simple but effective method that shares the weights from over-active neurons with dormant neurons.

ReBorn uses an identity function h ( θ ) = θ to map the parameters of agent networks to themselves, and uses function g ( θ ) to perturb the parameters θ of mixing networks. The process of g ( θ ) is described as follows. For each over-active neuron x , we randomly select M dormant neurons that belong to the same layer as x . Here, M is an random integer between 2 to 5. The selected dormant neurons, indexed by i , will share weights with neuron x . After weight sharing, these neurons will not be selected again. We denote w in x as the input weights for neuron x , b x as the bias of neuron x , w out x as the output weights. The main procedure of the ReBorn method is depicted in Figure 4.

The input weights of dormant neurons w in i are reborn as β i w in x , and the input weight of the overactive neuron x becomes β 0 w in x . The output weights for neuron x and i are reborn as 1 β 0 α 0 w out x and 1 β i α i w out x . The biases for the over-active and dormant neurons are set to β 0 b x , β i b x . [ β i ] i M =0 are sampled between 0.5 and 1.5. They are used to ensure more variation among neurons. [ α i ] i M =0 is obtained through sampling M + 1 from a normal distribution, and then a Softmax operator is performed on them to ensure ∑ M i =0 α i = 1 . For dormant neurons that are not selected, we use Xavier initialization to reset their weights.

Although ReBorn is simple, we have theoretically demonstrated that it satisfies the KI principle for QMIX through the following theorem.

Theorem 2. ReBorn satisfies the KI principle for the QMIX [2] value factorization method.

Moreover, we have theoretically shown that ReBorn satisfies the KI principle for a value factorization method: QPLEX in Theorem 4, a distributional value factorization method DMIX in Theorem 5, and a risk-sensitive value factorization method RMIX in Theorem 6. Furthermore, we show that after using ReBorn, the value functions Q tot learned by QMIX, QPLEX, DMIX, and RMIX still satisfy the IGM principle in Corollary 1 to 4. These theorems and proofs are listed in Appendix B .

6 Empirical Evaluations

In this section, we present experimental results and discuss their implications. We begin with a brief overview of our experimental setup in Section 6.1. Subsequently, we examine ReBorn's robust applicability to various MARL value factorization algorithms in Section 6.2. Furthermore, we demonstrate that ReBorn outperforms other parameter perturbing methods that are extended to MARL in Section 6.3. Lastly, we conduct a series of ablation studies in Section 6.4. All detailed experimental results can be found in Appendix D.4.

6.1 Environmental Setup

Environments. In our experiments, we employ three distinct environments that challenge the coordination and adaptability of MARL algorithms. Predator-prey simulates a grid world where multiple predators collaborate to capture preys dispersed throughout the map. A successful capture requires at least 2 predators to execute the capture action simultaneously, posing a great challenge for the algorithm's coordination ability. The StarCraft Multi-Agent Challenge (SMAC) [13] is a popular benchmark used extensively in MARL, where multiple ally units controlled by MARL algorithms aim to defeat enemy units controlled by the game's built-in AI. SMACv2 [14] features units that are randomly generated and positioned, enhancing stochasticity and significantly increasing the complexity of the scenarios. Please refer to Appendix D.2 for detailed descriptions.

Baselines and training. ReBorn, as a parameter perturbation mechanism, is applicable to various value factorization algorithms. We select 4 classical algorithms with different types: QMIX, QPLEX, DMIX and RMIX. ReDo, ReSet, SR [31] and MARR [32] four common parameter perturbation methods in deep RL, are adapted to MARL variants to serve as baselines. Detailed implementations and parameter configurations for each algorithm are available in Appendix D.1.

0.8M

1.6M

2.4M

3.2M

4.0M

Environmental Steps

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Test Win Rate

(a) 3s5z_vs_3s6z

QPLEX

QPLEX-ReBorn

RMIX

RMIX-ReBorn

400K

800K

1.2M

1.6M

2M

Environmental Steps

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Test Win Rate

(b) MMM2

QPLEX

QPLEX-ReBorn

RMIX

RMIX-ReBorn

200K

400K

600K

800K

1M

Environmental Steps

0

20

40

60

80

100

Return

(c) predator-prey small

QPLEX

QPLEX-ReBorn

RMIX

RMIX-ReBorn

0.8M

1.6M

2.4M

3.2M

4.0M

Environmental Steps

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Dormant Percent [%]

(d) 3s5z_vs_3s6z

QPLEX

QPLEX-ReBorn

RMIX

RMIX-ReBorn

400K

800K

1.2M

1.6M

2M

Environmental Steps

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Dormant Percent [%]

(e) MMM2

QPLEX

QPLEX-ReBorn

RMIX

RMIX-ReBorn

200K

400K

600K

800K

1M

Environmental Steps

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Dormant Percent [%]

(f) predator-prey small

QPLEX

QPLEX-ReBorn

RMIX

RMIX-ReBorn

6.2 ReBorn can improve the performance of various value factorization algorithms

In this section, we investigate the applicability of ReBorn through validating ReBorn's ability to enhance performance across various value factorization algorithms (QMIX, QPLEX, RMIX) in different experimental scenarios (3s5z_vs_3s6z, MMM2, predator-prey small). According to the experimental results presented in Figures 5, ReBorn can improve the performance of multiple algorithms and effectively reduce the dormant ratio of the mixing networks in diverse settings. More detailed experimental results can be found in Appendix D.4.1 and Appendix D.4.5.

6.3 ReBorn is superior to other RL parameter perturbing methods

We explore the superiority of ReBorn by applying different parameter perturbing methods to QMIX across various experimental scenarios (MMM2, 27m_vs_30m, predator-prey large). We added ReDo, Reset, SR and MARR for comparison and further analyzed the dormant ratios and the over-active sum ratios. ReDo and ReSet are common parameter perturbation methods in deep RL, while SR and MARR are reset replay methods. All of them are adapted to MARL variants to serve as baselines.

The results depicted in Figure 6 illustrate the win rates, the dormant ratios and the over-active sum ratios (the ratio of the sum of normalized activation scores of over-active neurons to the total sum of scores of all neurons) across different scenarios. The results indicate that compared to ReDo and ReSet, ReBorn can further enhance algorithm's performance and more effectively reduce both the dormant and over-active sum ratios of the mixing network. Please refer to Appendix D.4.4 for more experimental results.

6.4 Ablation Study and Discussion

6.4.1 Satisfying the KI Principle is of great importance

In this section, we demonstrate the importance of adhering to the Knowledge Invariance (KI) principle. Our analysis in Appendix B shows that applying ReBorn only to the mixing network adheres to the KI principle, while using it on the entire network results in a violation. We compared the performance of value factorization algorithms under the MMM2 scenario in SMAC, focusing on those that either adhere to or violate the KI principle. As illustrated in Figure 7, maintaining KI with ReBorn enhances the performance across all baseline algorithms, whereas violating it leads to performance drop in QMIX and QPLEX, highlighting the great importance of satisfying the KI principle.

0.4M

0.8M

1.2M

1.6M

2.0M

Environmental Steps

0

20

40

60

80

Test Win Rate

(a) MMM2

QMIX-SR

QMIX-MARR

0.4M

0.8M

1.2M

1.6M

2.0M

Environmental Steps

10

20

30

40

50

60

Dormant Percent [%]

(b) MMM2

QMIX-SR

QMIX-MARR

0.4M

0.8M

1.2M

1.6M

2.0M

Environmental Steps

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Overactive Sum Percent [%]

(c) MMM2

QMIX-SR

QMIX-MARR

0.4M

0.8M

1.2M

1.6M

2.0M

Environmental Steps

0

20

40

60

80

100

Test Win Rate

(d) 27m_vs_30m

QMIX-SR

QMIX-MARR

0.4M

0.8M

1.2M

1.6M

2.0M

Environmental Steps

20

40

60

80

Dormant Percent [%]

(e) 27m_vs_30m

QMIX-SR

QMIX-MARR

0.4M

0.8M

1.2M

1.6M

2.0M

Environmental Steps

20

40

60

80

Overactive Sum Percent [%]

(f) 27m_vs_30m

QMIX-SR

QMIX-MARR

0.2M

0.4M

0.6M

0.8M

1.0M

Environmental Steps

0

50

100

150

200

250

Return

(g) predator-prey large

QMIX-SR

QMIX-MARR

0.2M

0.4M

0.6M

0.8M

1.0M

Environmental Steps

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Dormant Percent [%]

(h) predator-prey large

QMIX-SR

QMIX-MARR

0.2M

0.4M

0.6M

0.8M

1.0M

Environmental Steps

0

20

40

60

80

100

Overactive Sum Percent [%]

(i) predator-prey large

QMIX-SR

QMIX-MARR

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

1.25

1.50

1.75

2.00

Environmental Steps

1e6

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Test Win Rate

(a) MMM2

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

1.25

1.50

1.75

2.00

Environmental Steps

1e6

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Test Win Rate

(b) MMM2

QPLEX

QPLEX-ReBorn with KI

QPLEX-ReBorn w/o KI

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

1.25

1.50

1.75

2.00

Environmental Steps

1e6

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Test Win Rate

(c) MMM2

RMIX

RMIX-ReBorn with KI

RMIX-ReBorn w/o KI

6.4.2 ReBorn is better than other methods that satisfy the KI principle

In this section, we explore various forms of the weight perturbation function g ( θ ) in ReBorn based on QMIX, while keeping the function h ( θ ) = θ constant. In ReBorn, g ( θ ) transfers weights from overactive neurons to dormant neurons. In ReBorn (ReDo), g ( θ ) periodically re-initializes the weights of dormant neurons. In ReBorn (ReSet), g ( θ ) periodically resets the parameters of the last layer of the neural network. In ReBorn (Reverse ReDo), g ( θ ) periodically resets the input and output weights of over-active neurons. In ReBorn (Pruning), g ( θ ) periodically prunes dormant neurons. To ensure the accuracy of our conclusions, we conducte experiments across various value factorization algorithms. The experimental results shown in Figure 8 demonstrate that compared with other methods, ReBorn significantly enhance the performance of value factorization algorithms.

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

1.25

1.50

1.75

2.00

Environmental Steps

1e6

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Test Win Rate

MMM2

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

1.25

1.50

1.75

2.00

Environmental Steps

1e6

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Test Win Rate

MMM2

QPLEX-ReBorn

QPLEX-ReBorn (ReDo)

QPLEX-ReBorn (ReSet)

QPLEX-ReBorn (Reverse ReDo)

QPLEX-ReBorn (Pruning)

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

1.25

1.50

1.75

2.00

Environmental Steps

1e6

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Test Win Rate

MMM2

RMIX-ReBorn

RMIX-ReBorn (ReDo)

RMIX-ReBorn (ReSet)

RMIX-ReBorn (Reverse ReDo)

RMIX-ReBorn (Pruning)

400K

800K

1.2M

1.6M

2M

Environmental Steps

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Test Win Rate

(a) MMM2

=0.025)

=0.25)

400K

800K

1.2M

1.6M

2M

Environmental Steps

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Test Win Rate

(b) MMM2

=2)

=5)

400K

800K

1.2M

1.6M

2M

Environmental Steps

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Test Win Rate

(c) MMM2

T

=0.1

M

)

T

=0.4

M

)

6.4.3 Sensitivity analyses of hyper-parameters

The ablation study in Figure 9 illustrates the impact of different hyperparameter settings in QMIXReBorn, focusing on the ablation of the dormant threshold α , the over-active threshold β , and the ReBorn interval T . The default configuration of QMIX-ReBorn is α = 0 . 1 , β = 3 , and T = 0 . 2 M . We modify each hyperparameter individually, and the experimental results indicate that appropriate hyperparameters help to better balance network activation, thereby enhancing overall performance.

7 Conclusion

In this work, we identify the dormant neuron phenomenon in Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning (MARL) Value Factorization. Such a phenomenon mainly exists in the mixing network, which hurts its expressive ability. We discover the existence of over-active neurons, which correlate with dormant neurons. Existing parameter perturbing methods do not work efficiently for the dormant neurons in MARL, due to the ignorance of over-active neurons and the forgotten of learned knowledge. We formulate the memorization requirement for learning agents' cooperation knowledge as the Knowledge Invariant (KI) principle. In this work, we propose ReBorn, which is a simple but effective parameter perturbing method. We show that it satisfies the KI principle and can improve the performance of multiple value factorization methods better than other parameter perturbing methods.

Acknowledgement This work was partially supported by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (No. 20720230033), by PDL (2022-PDL-12). We would like thank the anonymous reviewers for their valuable suggestions.

References

Pablo Hernandez-Leal, Bilal Kartal, and Matthew E. Taylor. Is multiagent deep reinforcement learning the answer or the question? A brief survey. In AAMAS , pages 750-797, 2019.

Tabish Rashid, Mikayel Samvelyan, Christian Schröder de Witt, Gregory Farquhar, Jakob N. Foerster, and Shimon Whiteson. QMIX: monotonic value function factorisation for deep multi-agent reinforcement learning. In ICML , pages 4292-4301, 2018.

Aviral Kumar, Rishabh Agarwal, Dibya Ghosh, and Sergey Levine. Implicit underparameterization inhibits data-efficient deep reinforcement learning. In ICLR , 2021.

Ghada Sokar, Rishabh Agarwal, Pablo Samuel Castro, and Utku Evci. The dormant neuron phenomenon in deep reinforcement learning. In ICML , pages 32145-32168, 2023.

Maximilian Igl, Gregory Farquhar, Jelena Luketina, Wendelin Boehmer, and Shimon Whiteson. Transient non-stationarity and generalisation in deep reinforcement learning. In ICLR , 2021.

Evgenii Nikishin, Max Schwarzer, Pierluca D'Oro, Pierre-Luc Bacon, and Aaron C. Courville. The primacy bias in deep reinforcement learning. In ICML , pages 16828-16847, 2022.

Shayegan Omidshafiei, Jason Pazis, Christopher Amato, Jonathan P. How, and John Vian. Deep decentralized multi-task multi-agent reinforcement learning under partial observability. In ICML , pages 2681-2690, 2017.

Frans A. Oliehoek, Matthijs T. J. Spaan, and Nikos A. Vlassis. Optimal and approximate q-value functions for decentralized pomdps. J. Artif. Intell. Res. , 32:289-353, 2008.

Kyunghwan Son, Daewoo Kim, Wan Ju Kang, David Hostallero, and Yung Yi. QTRAN: learning to factorize with transformation for cooperative multi-agent reinforcement learning. In ICML , pages 5887-5896, 2019.

Jianhao Wang, Zhizhou Ren, Terry Liu, Yang Yu, and Chongjie Zhang. Qplex: Duplex dueling multi-agent q-learning. In ICLR , 2021.

Wei-Fang Sun, Cheng-Kuang Lee, and Chun-Yi Lee. DFAC framework: Factorizing the value function via quantile mixture for multi-agent distributional q-learning. In ICML , pages 9945-9954, 2021.

Wei Qiu, Xinrun Wang, Runsheng Yu, Rundong Wang, Xu He, Bo An, Svetlana Obraztsova, and Zinovi Rabinovich. RMIX: learning risk-sensitive policies for cooperative reinforcement learning agents. In NeurIPS , pages 23049-23062, 2021.

Mikayel Samvelyan, Tabish Rashid, Christian Schröder de Witt, Gregory Farquhar, Nantas Nardelli, Tim G. J. Rudner, Chia-Man Hung, Philip H. S. Torr, Jakob N. Foerster, and Shimon Whiteson. The starcraft multi-agent challenge. In AAMAS , pages 2186-2188, 2019.

Benjamin Ellis, Jonathan Cook, Skander Moalla, Mikayel Samvelyan, Mingfei Sun, Anuj Mahajan, Jakob N. Foerster, and Shimon Whiteson. Smacv2: An improved benchmark for cooperative multi-agent reinforcement learning. In NeurIPS , 2023.

Wendelin Böhmer, Vitaly Kurin, and Shimon Whiteson. Deep coordination graphs. In ICML , 2020.

Frans A. Oliehoek and Christopher Amato. A Concise Introduction to Decentralized POMDPs . Springer Briefs in Intelligent Systems. Springer, 2016.

Peter Sunehag, Guy Lever, Audrunas Gruslys, Wojciech Marian Czarnecki, Vinícius Flores Zambaldi, Max Jaderberg, Marc Lanctot, Nicolas Sonnerat, Joel Z. Leibo, Karl Tuyls, and Thore Graepel. Value-decomposition networks for cooperative multi-agent learning based on team reward. In AAMAS , pages 2085-2087, 2018.

Yaodong Yang, Jianye Hao, Ben Liao, Kun Shao, Guangyong Chen, Wulong Liu, and Hongyao Tang. Qatten: A general framework for cooperative multiagent reinforcement learning. CoRR , 2020.

Guowei Xu, Ruijie Zheng, Yongyuan Liang, Xiyao Wang, Zhecheng Yuan, Tianying Ji, Yu Luo, Xiaoyu Liu, Jiaxin Yuan, Pu Hua, Shuzhen Li, Yanjie Ze, Hal Daumé III, Furong Huang, and Huazhe Xu. Drm: Mastering visual reinforcement learning through dormant ratio minimization. In ICLR , 2024.

Tabish Rashid, Gregory Farquhar, Bei Peng, and Shimon Whiteson. Weighted QMIX: expanding monotonic value function factorisation for deep multi-agent reinforcement learning. In NeurIPS , 2020.

Siqi Shen, Mengwei Qiu, Jun Liu, Weiquan Liu, Yongquan Fu, Xinwang Liu, and Cheng Wang. Resq: A residual q function-based approach for multi-agent reinforcement learning value factorization. In NeurIPS , 2022.

Siqi Shen, Chennan Ma, Chao Li, Weiquan Liu, Yongquan Fu, Songzhu Mei, Xinwang Liu, and Cheng Wang. Riskq: Risk-sensitive multi-agent reinforcement learning value factorization. In NeurIPS , 2023.

Clare Lyle, Mark Rowland, and Will Dabney. Understanding and preventing capacity loss in reinforcement learning. In ICLR , 2022.

Robert Kirk, Amy Zhang, Edward Grefenstette, and Tim Rocktäschel. A survey of zero-shot generalisation in deep reinforcement learning. JAIR , 76:201-264, 2023.

Chiyuan Zhang, Oriol Vinyals, Remi Munos, and Samy Bengio. A study on overfitting in deep reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.06893 , 2018.

Kimin Lee, Kibok Lee, Jinwoo Shin, and Honglak Lee. Network randomization: A simple technique for generalization in deep reinforcement learning. In ICLR , 2019.

Karl Cobbe, Oleg Klimov, Chris Hesse, Taehoon Kim, and John Schulman. Quantifying generalization in reinforcement learning. In ICML , pages 1282-1289, 2019.

Nicklas Hansen and Xiaolong Wang. Generalization in reinforcement learning by soft data augmentation. In ICRA , pages 13611-13617, 2021.

Clare Lyle, Zeyu Zheng, Evgenii Nikishin, Bernardo Avila Pires, Razvan Pascanu, and Will Dabney. Understanding plasticity in neural networks. In ICML , pages 23190-23211, 2023.

Evgenii Nikishin, Junhyuk Oh, Georg Ostrovski, Clare Lyle, Razvan Pascanu, Will Dabney, and André Barreto. Deep reinforcement learning with plasticity injection. In NeurIPS , 2023.

Pierluca D'Oro, Max Schwarzer, Evgenii Nikishin, Pierre-Luc Bacon, Marc G Bellemare, and Aaron Courville. Sample-efficient reinforcement learning by breaking the replay ratio barrier. In ICLR , 2023.

Yaodong Yang, Guangyong Chen, Jianye HAO, and Pheng-Ann Heng. Sample-efficient multiagent reinforcement learning with reset replay. In ICML , 2024.

Zhou Lu, Hongming Pu, Feicheng Wang, Zhiqiang Hu, and Liwei Wang. The expressive power of neural networks: A view from the width. In NeurIPS , pages 6232-6240, 2017.

Maithra Raghu, Ben Poole, Jon Kleinberg, Surya Ganguli, and Jascha Sohl-Dickstein. On the expressive power of deep neural networks. In ICML , pages 2847-2854, 2017.

Boris Hanin and David Rolnick. Complexity of linear regions in deep networks. In ICML , pages 2596-2604, 2019.

Boris Hanin. Universal function approximation by deep neural nets with bounded width and relu activations. Mathematics , 7(10):992, 2019.

Hrushikesh Mhaskar, Qianli Liao, and Tomaso Poggio. When and why are deep networks better than shallow ones? In AAAI , 2017.

Maximilian Igl, Gregory Farquhar, Jelena Luketina, Wendelin Boehmer, and Shimon Whiteson. Transient non-stationarity and generalisation in deep reinforcement learning. In ICLR , 2021.

David Ha, Andrew M. Dai, and Quoc V. Le. Hypernetworks. In ICLR , 2017.

A Background

A.1 Dec-POMDPs

We consider Decentralized Partially Observable Markov Decision Processes (Dec-POMDPs) [16] in modeling cooperative multi-agent reinforcement learning (MARL) scenarios. A Dec-POMDP can be formally described by the tuple G = ⟨S , {U i } N i =1 , P, r, {O i } N i =1 , { σ i } N i =1 , N, γ ⟩ , where N represents the set of agents, S is a finite set of states, and U i is the set of actions available to agent i . At time step t , each agent i chooses an action u t i ∈ U i , forming a joint action u t ∈ U N = U 1 × . . . × U N . This leads to a transition to a new state s t +1 ∼ P ( ·| s t , u t ) and a joint reward r t .. In consideration of partial observability, each agent can only access an individual observation o t i ∈ O i , which is drawn from o t i ∼ σ i ( ·| s t ) . γ denotes the discounting factor. Each agent acts base on individual policy π i ( u i | τ i ) , τ i = ( O i × U i ) ∗ represents agent's local action-observation history. the global action-observation history is denoted as τ ∈ T N := τ 1 × . . . × τ N , on which it conditions the joint policy π = < π 1 , . . . , π N > . The joint policy π has a joint action-value function: Q π ( s t , u t ) = E s t +1: ∞ , u t +1: ∞ [ R t | s t , u t ] , where R t = ∑ ∞ i =0 γ i r t + i is the discounted return.

A.2 Value Function Factorization

For cooperative multi-agent reinforcement learning tasks with partial observability challenges, agents are supposed to select actions solely based on their local observations. This presents significant challenges to global coordination in scenarios where communication is unavailable. To efficiently solve this problem, centralized training with decentralized execution (CTDE) was proposed as a popular paradigm. During centralized training, access to global information is available, while only local action-observation histories are accessible during decentralized execution phase. Value factorization is a class of effective value-based methods under the CTDE paradigm, where agents make decisions based on individual utility functions. The mixing network is employed during training to fit the relationship between the joint value function and individual utility functions. Among all value factorization methods, the Individual-Global-Max (IGM) principle proposed by [9] is a critical criterion that must be adhered to, ensuring the consistency between local and joint optimal action selections. The definition of the IGM principle is as follows:

Definition 6 (IGM) . For a joint state-action value function Q jt : T N ×U N ↦→ R , where τ ∈ T N is a joint action-observation history and u is the joint action, if there exists individual state-action functions [ Q i : T i ×U i ↦→ R ] N i =1 , such that the following conditions are satisfied

then, we can state that [ Q i ] N i =1 satisfy IGM for Q jt under τ , or Q jt ( τ , u ) is factorized by [ Q i ( τ i , u i )] N i =1 .

In recent years, ensuring the adherence to the IGM principle, a series of value factorization methods have been proposed. VDN imposes additive constraints on the mixing network, and QMIX enhances VDN's representation ability by imposing monotonicity constraints. These constraints are sufficient conditions for IGM, limiting the representational ability of the joint value function. QTRAN transforms the IGM principle into a linear constraint and proposes an easily factorizable form. Qatten uses the attention mechanism to model each agent's impact on the global situation. QPLEX decomposes the state-action value function into a state value part and an advantage value part. ResQ converts the joint value function into the sum of a main function and a residual function, deriving optimal policy through masking.

Appendix

B Principle and Theorem

Theorem 1. After the ReBorn process, the learned value function of the QMIX [2] value factorization method still satisfy the KI principle.

where Q θ, ϕ tot ( τ , u ) = f θ ( Q ϕ 1 ( τ 1 , u 1 ) , ..., Q ϕ N ( τ N , u N )) is the joint state-action value funtion, f θ is the value factorization function of QMIX. In Reborn, g maps the parameters θ of the mixing network and the parameters ϕ of the agent network to ˆ θ .

Proof. Through the use of non-negative activation function (e.g. absolute) and hypernet [39], QMIX can ensure the following property.

It indicates that if Q ϕ i increase, then the value of f increases.

̸

̸

̸

̸

(B.9) to (B.10) is because u i = u ′ i , ∀ i = i , and u k = u ′ k and the monotonicy conditions. (B.10) to (B.11) is due to the monotonicy condition, because u i = u ′ i , ∀ i = i , and u k = u ′ k . Thus, we show that after the ReBorn process, the learned action preference of QMIX does not change.

̸

̸

Corollary 1. After the ReBorn Process, the value function of QMIX remain satisfies the IGM principle.

Proof. To prove this Corollary is equal to prove that the maximal action remain the same after the ReBorn method. It is shows that the ReBorn method satisfy the KI principle for QMIX, thus the

following condition is satisfy.

̸

(B.19) shows that the IGM principle is still preserve after applying ReBorn on the joint state-action value Q tot of QMIX.

Theorem 2. ReDo [4] with function g and h does not guarantee satisfying the KI principle for the QMIX [2] value factorization method which is defined as follows.

where f θ is the value factorization function of QMIX, g map the parameters θ of the mixing network to ˆ θ , h map the parameters ϕ of the agent network to ˜ ϕ , Xavier ( w ) indicates the Xavier initialization function, θ o d , θ i d are the output/input weights of dormant neurons in θ , respectively, ϕ o d / ϕ i d are the output/input weights of dormant neurons in ϕ , respectively.

Proof. We prove this theorem by providing an example that ReDo does not satisfy the KI principle. We assume that the mixing network, parameterized by θ is a three layer neural work. As it is depicted in Figure 1, the input layer neurons are used for joint state-action history τ . It also takes actions u as input. There are in total four joint actions represent as u 1 = [0 , 0] , u 2 = [0 , 1] , u 3 = [1 , 0] , u 4 = [1 , 1] . There are two agents, each has two actions represent as 0 and 1, respectively. The action of the first/second agent is fed into the second/third neuron of the input layer. The weights of each neurons are marked on the edges and we assume bias b = 0 . According to the definition 2 and the weights, the blue neuron is a dormant neuron. Assuming τ = 1 , we can obtain the relationship of Q ( τ , u ) corresponding to each action:

For the dormant neuron (colored), ReDo B.22 reinitialized the input weights of the neuron using Xavier initialization, the output weights of the neurons are set to zero. The weights after ReDo are as depicted in the right part of Figure 1, and we assume that the bias for each neuron is zero. We can obtain the relationship of Q ′ ( τ , u ) corresponding to each joint action:

Since the original optimal action u 3 in B.23 is different from the one u 4 in B.24 after Redo, we can draw a conclusion that ReDo does not satisfy the KI principle .

(Q(1,[0,0]))

/1.01\

(Q'(1,[0,0]))

/1.00)

Q(T,[a1,a2]) =

Q(1,[0,1])

1.00

Q'(T,[a1,a2]) =

Q'(1,[0,1])

1.01

Q(1,[1,0])

2.02

Q'(1,[1,0])

2.00

(Q(1,[1,1])/

(2.01/

(Q'(1,[1,1]))

(2.01/

[-1

Ewc

·

ReDo

Ewc

1-1

Ewc

0.01

0.01

0.02

1

Q.01

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.01

Dormantneuron

XavierInitialization

Settozero

T

action

action

Theorem 3. ReSet [6] with function g and h does not guarantee satisfying the KI principle for the QMIX [2] value factorization method which is defined as follows.

where f θ is the value factorization function of QMIX, g map the parameters θ of the mixing network to ˆ θ , h map the parameters ϕ of the agent network to ˜ ϕ , Xavier ( w ) indicates the Xavier initialization function.

Proof. We prove this theorem by providing an example that ReSet does not satisfy the KI principle. Consider a three-layer mixing network parameterized by θ , which takes joint action-observation history, represented as τ , and actions u as input, shown in Figure 2. There are in total four actions represent as u 1 = [0 , 0] , u 2 = [0 , 1] , u 3 = [1 , 0] , u 4 = [1 , 1] . There are two agents, each has two actions represent as 0 and 1, respectively. The action of the first/second agent is fed into the second/third neuron of the input layer. The weights of each neurons are marked on the edges and we assume bias b = 0 . Assuming τ = 1 , we can obtain the relationship of Q ( τ , u ) corresponding to each action:

The weights of the last layer are reinitialized using Xavier initialization according to B.27. The weights after ReDo are as depicted in the right part of Figure 2. We can obtain the relationship of Q ′ ( τ , u ) corresponding to each joint action:

Since the original optimal action u 3 in B.28 is different from the optimal action u 4 in B.29 after Reset, we can draw a conclusion that Reset does not satisfy the KI principle .

(Q(1,[0,0]))

(Q'(1,[0,0]))

/1.1\

Q(T,[a1,a2]) =

Q(1,[0,1])

1

Q'(T,[a1,a2]) =

Q'(1,[0,1])

1.9

Q(1,[1,0])

4

Q’(1,[1,0])

2.2

(Q(1,[1,1])/

3

(Q'(1,[1,1])]

3

0.1

Ewc

·

ReSet

Ewc

Ewc

2

2

XavierInitialization

action

action

Theorem 4. ReBorn with functions g and h satisfies the KI principle for the QPLEX [10] value factorization method.

where f θ is the value factorization function of QMIX. In Reborn, g map the parameters θ of the mixing network to ˆ θ .

Proof. QPLEX uses non-negative weighted attention network to implement f θ which satisfies the following property.

̸

̸

̸

̸

(B.41) to (B.42) is because u i = u ′ i , ∀ i = k , and u k = u ′ k and the monotonicy conditions. (B.42) to (B.43) is due to the monotonicy condition, because u i = u ′ i ∀ i = i , and u k = u ′ k . Thus, we show that after the ReBorn process, the learned action preference of QPLEX does not change.

̸

Corollary 2. After the ReBorn Process, the value function of QPLEX remain satisfies the IGM principle.

Proof. The proof is the same as the proof for showing after the ReBorn process, QMIX satisfies the IGM principle. It is omitted for brevity.

Theorem 5. ReBorn with functions g and h satisfies the KI principle for the DMIX [10] value factorization method. DMIX is a distribution MARL algorithm which models the distributional return Z tot of multi-agent system.

In Reborn, g map the parameters θ of the mixing network to ˆ θ .

Proof.

̸

Thus, we show that after the ReBorn process, the learned action preference of DMIX does not change.

Corollary 3. After the ReBorn Process, the value function of DMIX remain satisfies the IGM principle.

Proof. The proof is the same as the proof for showing after the ReBorn process, QMIX satisfies the IGM principle. It is omitted for brevity.

Quantile functions (inverse CDF) θ of a random variable Z is defined as follows.

where CDF Z ( z ) is the cumulative distribution function of Z . We denote θ Z ( ω ) as θ ( ω ) for simplicity.

Definition 7 (Conditional Value at Risk(CVaR)) .

where α is the confidence level (risk level), θ ( α ) is the quantile function (inverse CDF) defined in (B.60) . CVaR is the expectation of values z that are less equal than the α -quantile value ( θ ( α ) ) of the value distribution.

Theorem 6. ReBorn with functions g and h satisfies the KI principle for the RMIX [12] value factorization method. RMIX is a risk-sensitive MARL algorithm which consider risk in multi-agent system. Its joint state-action value function is defined as follows.

In Reborn, g map the parameters θ of the mixing network to ˆ θ .

̸

Proof.

̸

Thus, we show that through ReBorn, the learned knowledge about action preference of RMIX does not change.

Corollary 4. After the ReBorn Process, the value function of RMIX remain satisfies the IGM principle.

Proof. In RMIX, each agent acts greedy according to C ϕ i ( τ i , u i ) = CVaR α [ Z ϕ i ( τ i , u i )] . It could be viewed as Q phi i ( τ i , u i ) in QMIX. By this way, we can prove this Corollary in the same approach as for showing after the ReBorn process, QMIX satisfies the IGM principle. It is omitted for brevity.

C Algorithm

The ReBorn algorithm is described in Algorithm 1.

D Experimental Details

D.1 Experimental Setup

We select 4 classical algorithms (QMIX, QPLEX, DMIX, RMIX) with different types to test the generality of ReBorn. QMIX and QPLEX are two well-known value-based MARL value factorization algorithms. DMIX is a distributional MARL value factorization algorithm, while RMIX is a risksensitive MARL value factorization algorithm. These four algorithms cover multiple directions in the field of value factorization, demonstrating the strong applicability of ReBorn. Below is the brief descriptions of these algorithms.

We implement these algorithms based on their open-source repositories to carry out performance analyses, with hyperparameters consistent with those in PyMARL. Our methods are implemented within the PyMARL framework, and each is evaluated using 5 random seeds, with 95% confidence intervals. Specific hyperparameters of different algorithms are listed in Table 2. We conduct experiments on a cluster equipped with multiple NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 GPUs.

In deep RL, ReDo [4] and ReSet [5] are two common mechanisms for improving network's performance through neuron processing. The specific introductions are as follows.

ReDo. ReDo periodically detects dormant neurons within the neural network and resets the input and output weights of these dormant neurons. The input weights are initialized using the Xavier method, while the output weights are set to zero.

ReSet. ReSet periodically resets the parameters of the neural network's final layer using Xavier initialization.

Below is a brief introduction to all the methods used in the experimental section.

In Table 3, algorithm is QMIX, QPLEX, DMIX, RMIX. mechanism is ReBorn, ReDo, ReSet. Specific hyperparameters of different mechanisms are listed as follows.

D.2 Environment

D.2.1 Predator-prey

Predator-prey simulates a grid world where multiple agents collaborate to capture preys dispersed throughout the map. At each time step, each agent can choose to move or capture within its local field of view. A prey is considered captured successfully only when at least two agents around it execute the capture action simultaneously. Each successful capture brings a team reward of +10 , with the goal being to accumulate as much team reward as possible within a limited number of time steps. We develop three distinct environmental configurations: small, middle, large, each featuring different numbers of agents and preys, as well as varying map sizes. Table 4 shows different environmental configurations of Predator-prey in detail.

Game Rules

Agent Movement : Agents can move in four directions or stay in place. Movement is restricted by the presence of other agents or preys.

Observation and Decision Making : Each agent observes a 3x3 grid centered around itself, receiving information about nearby agents and preys. Decisions are based on this local observation.

Capture Mechanism : To capture a prey, at least two agents must be adjacent to it and must choose the capture action at the same time. Successful capture relies on strategic positioning and synchronized actions among agents.

Rewards and Penalties : Agents receive a positive reward for each prey captured through cooperative action, while individual movement incurs a slight negative time penalty -0 . 1 to encourage efficiency.

Episode Termination : An episode terminates if all preys are captured or after a predefined number of steps, providing a fixed time frame for agents to maximize their collective reward.

D.2.2 StarCraft II Multi-Agent Challenges (SMAC)

The StarCraft Multi-Agent Challenge (SMAC) [13] is a popular benchmark used extensively in the domain of multi-agent reinforcement learning. Built on the StarCraft II game engine, SMAC specializes in micromanagement scenarios where each agent is controlled by an independent agent that must make decisions based on local observations. MARL algorithms coordinate a team of agents to engage in combat against an opposing team managed by the game's built-in AI. The performance of these algorithms is quantitatively evaluated by the test win rate or the test return of the gameplay.

Table 5 depicts the overview of SMAC scenarios used in the experiment.

D.2.3 SMACv2

SMACv2 [14] addresses several critical limitations of SMAC, including the lack of stochasticity and partial observability. Unlike SMAC, SMACv2 features units that are randomly generated and positioned, enhancing stochasticity and significantly increasing the complexity of the scenarios.

Table 6 depicts the overview of SMACv2 scenarios used in the experiment.

D.3 Dormant neurons limit the expressive power of Mixing networks

To analyze the impact of the dormant ratio on the expressive power of the mixing network, we consider an illustrative example that requires mixing individual utilities of three agents. For this purpose, we design a simple 2-layer MLP network. The input layer, with a size of 3, receives individual utilities [ Q i ] 3 i =1 . The hidden layer contains 4 neurons and uses ReLU as the activation function. The output layer, with a size of 1, produces Q tot . The objective is to fit the mixing function Q tot = 0 . 5 ∗ Q 5 1 + Q 3 2 +1 . 5 ∗ Q 3 , Q i ∼ N (0 , 1) .

We control the dormant ratio by varying the number of dormant neurons in the hidden layer. Figure 2 (a) illustrates the expressive performance of networks with different dormant ratios. Number = n indicates that there are n dormant neurons in the hidden layer. We use Mean Squared Error as the loss function. According to the results, an increase in the dormant ratio will lead to reduced expressive power of the mixing network.

D.4 Experimental Results

D.4.1 ReBorn can improve the performance of various value factorization algorithms

Predator-Prey & SMAC

200K

400K

600K

800K

1M

Environmental Steps

0

20

40

60

80

100

Return

predator-prey small

QPLEX

QPLEX-ReBorn

DMIX

DMIX-ReBorn

RMIX

RMIX-ReBorn

200K

400K

600K

800K

1M

Environmental Steps

0

50

100

150

200

Return

predator-prey medium

QPLEX

QPLEX-ReBorn

DMIX

DMIX-ReBorn

200K

400K

600K

800K

1M

Environmental Steps

0

50

100

150

200

250

Return

predator-prey large

QPLEX

QPLEX-ReBorn

DMIX

DMIX-ReBorn

200K

400K

600K

800K

1M

Environmental Steps

0

10

20

30

40

Dormant Percent [%]

predator-prey small

QPLEX

QPLEX-ReBorn

DMIX

DMIX-ReBorn

RMIX

RMIX-ReBorn

200K

400K

600K

800K

1M

Environmental Steps

0

10

20

30

40

50

Dormant Percent [%]

predator-prey medium

QPLEX

QPLEX-ReBorn

DMIX

DMIX-ReBorn

200K

400K

600K

800K

1M

Environmental Steps

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Dormant Percent [%]

predator-prey large

QPLEX

QPLEX-ReBorn

DMIX

DMIX-ReBorn

400K

800K

1.2M

1.6M

2M

Environmental Steps

0

20

40

60

80

100

Test Win Rate

3s_vs_5z

QPLEX

QPLEX-ReBorn

DMIX

DMIX-ReBorn

RMIX

RMIX-ReBorn

400K

800K

1.2M

1.6M

2M

Environmental Steps

0

20

40

60

80

100

Test Win Rate

MMM2

QPLEX

QPLEX-ReBorn

DMIX

DMIX-ReBorn

RMIX

RMIX-ReBorn

400K

800K

1.2M

1.6M

2M

Environmental Steps

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Test Win Rate

27m_vs_30m

QPLEX

QPLEX-ReBorn

DMIX

DMIX-ReBorn

400K

800K

1.2M

1.6M

2M

Environmental Steps

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Dormant Percent [%]

3s_vs_5z

QPLEX

QPLEX-ReBorn

DMIX

DMIX-ReBorn

RMIX

RMIX-ReBorn

400K

800K

1.2M

1.6M

2M

Environmental Steps

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Dormant Percent [%]

MMM2

QPLEX

QPLEX-ReBorn

DMIX

DMIX-ReBorn

RMIX

RMIX-ReBorn

400K

800K

1.2M

1.6M

2M

Environmental Steps

0

20

40

60

80

Dormant Percent [%]

27m_vs_30m

QPLEX

QPLEX-ReBorn

DMIX

DMIX-ReBorn

400K

800K

1.2M

1.6M

2M

Environmental Steps

0

20

40

60

80

100

Test Win Rate

2c_vs_64zg

QPLEX

QPLEX-ReBorn

DMIX

DMIX-ReBorn

0.8M

1.6M

2.4M

3.2M

4.0M

Environmental Steps

0

20

40

60

80

100

Test Win Rate

3s5z_vs_3s6z

QPLEX

QPLEX-ReBorn

DMIX

DMIX-ReBorn

RMIX

RMIX-ReBorn

0.8M

1.6M

2.4M

3.2M

4.0M

Environmental Steps

0

20

40

60

80

100

Test Win Rate

corridor

QPLEX

QPLEX-ReBorn

DMIX

DMIX-ReBorn

400K

800K

1.2M

1.6M

2M

Environmental Steps

0

10

20

30

40

Dormant Percent [%]

2c_vs_64zg

QPLEX

QPLEX-ReBorn

DMIX

DMIX-ReBorn

0.8M

1.6M

2.4M

3.2M

4.0M

Environmental Steps

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Dormant Percent [%]

3s5z_vs_3s6z

QPLEX

QPLEX-ReBorn

DMIX

DMIX-ReBorn

RMIX

RMIX-ReBorn

0.8M

1.6M

2.4M

3.2M

4.0M

Environmental Steps

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Dormant Percent [%]

corridor

QPLEX

QPLEX-ReBorn

DMIX

DMIX-ReBorn

SMACv2

1.0M

2.0M

3.0M

4.0M

5.0M

Environmental Steps

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

Test Win Rate

10gen_zerg

QPLEX

QPLEX-ReBorn

1.0M

2.0M

3.0M

4.0M

5.0M

Environmental Steps

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

Test Win Rate

10gen_terran

QPLEX

QPLEX-ReBorn

1.0M

2.0M

3.0M

4.0M

5.0M

Environmental Steps

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

Test Win Rate

10gen_protoss

QPLEX

QPLEX-ReBorn

1.0M

2.0M

3.0M

4.0M

5.0M

Environmental Steps

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Dormant Percent [%]

10gen_zerg

QPLEX

QPLEX-ReBorn

1.0M

2.0M

3.0M

4.0M

5.0M

Environmental Steps

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Dormant Percent [%]

10gen_terran

QPLEX

QPLEX-ReBorn

1.0M

2.0M

3.0M

4.0M

5.0M

Environmental Steps

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Dormant Percent [%]

10gen_protoss

QPLEX

QPLEX-ReBorn

D.4.2 Compare neuron activation values with different methods

5

10

15

20

25

Score Ranking

0

10

20

30

40

50

Percent [%]

5

10

15

20

25

Score Ranking

0

10

20

30

40

50

Percent [%]

5

10

15

20

25

Score Ranking

0

10

20

30

40

50

Percent [%]

D.4.3 ReBorn is better than other methods that satisfy the KI principle

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

1.25

1.50

1.75

2.00

Environmental Steps

1e6

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Test Win Rate

MMM2

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

1.25

1.50

1.75

2.00

Environmental Steps

1e6

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Test Win Rate

MMM2

QPLEX-ReBorn

QPLEX-ReBorn (ReDo)

QPLEX-ReBorn (ReSet)

QPLEX-ReBorn (Reverse ReDo)

QPLEX-ReBorn (Pruning)

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

1.25

1.50

1.75

2.00

Environmental Steps

1e6

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Test Win Rate

MMM2

RMIX-ReBorn

RMIX-ReBorn (ReDo)

RMIX-ReBorn (ReSet)

RMIX-ReBorn (Reverse ReDo)

RMIX-ReBorn (Pruning)

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

1.25

1.50

1.75

2.00

Environmental Steps

1e6

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Dormant Ratio [%]

MMM2

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

1.25

1.50

1.75

2.00

Environmental Steps

1e6

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Dormant Ratio [%]

MMM2

QPLEX-ReBorn

QPLEX-ReBorn (ReDo)

QPLEX-ReBorn (ReSet)

QPLEX-ReBorn (Reverse ReDo)

QPLEX-ReBorn (Pruning)

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

1.25

1.50

1.75

2.00

Environmental Steps

1e6

0

10

20

30

40

50

Dormant Ratio [%]

MMM2

RMIX-ReBorn

RMIX-ReBorn (ReDo)

RMIX-ReBorn (ReSet)

RMIX-ReBorn (Reverse ReDo)

RMIX-ReBorn (Pruning)

D.4.4 ReBorn is superior to other RL parameter perturbing methods

0.2M

0.4M

0.6M

0.8M

1.0M

Environmental Steps

0

20

40

60

80

100

Return

predator-prey small

QMIX-SR

QMIX-MARR

0.2M

0.4M

0.6M

0.8M

1.0M

Environmental Steps

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Dormant Percent [%]

predator-prey small

QMIX-SR

QMIX-MARR

0.2M

0.4M

0.6M

0.8M

1.0M

Environmental Steps

0

20

40

60

80

100

Overactive Sum Percent [%]

predator-prey small

QMIX-SR

QMIX-MARR

0.2M

0.4M

0.6M

0.8M

1.0M

Environmental Steps

0

50

100

150

200

Return

predator-prey medium

QMIX-SR

QMIX-MARR

0.2M

0.4M

0.6M

0.8M

1.0M

Environmental Steps

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Dormant Percent [%]

predator-prey medium

QMIX-SR

QMIX-MARR

0.2M

0.4M

0.6M

0.8M

1.0M

Environmental Steps

0

20

40

60

80

100

Overactive Sum Percent [%]

predator-prey medium

QMIX-SR

QMIX-MARR

0.4M

0.8M

1.2M

1.6M

2.0M

Environmental Steps

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Test Win Rate

2c_vs_64zg

QMIX-SR

QMIX-MARR

0.4M

0.8M

1.2M

1.6M

2.0M

Environmental Steps

10

20

30

40

50

60

Dormant Percent [%]

2c_vs_64zg

QMIX-SR

QMIX-MARR

0.4M

0.8M

1.2M

1.6M

2.0M

Environmental Steps

0

20

40

60

80

Overactive Sum Percent [%]

2c_vs_64zg

QMIX-SR

QMIX-MARR

1.0M

2.0M

3.0M

4.0M

5.0M

Environmental Steps

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

Test Win Rate

10gen_zerg

QMIX-ReDo

1.0M

2.0M

3.0M

4.0M

5.0M

Environmental Steps

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Dormant Percent [%]

10gen_zerg

QMIX-ReDo

1.0M

2.0M

3.0M

4.0M

5.0M

Environmental Steps

20

40

60

80

100

Overweight Sum Percent [%]

10gen_zerg

QMIX-ReDo

D.4.5 ReBorn can improve the performance of ResQ

200K

400K

600K

800K

1M

Environmental Steps

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Return

predator-prey small

200K

400K

600K

800K

1M

Environmental Steps

0

20

40

60

80

Return

predator-prey medium

200K

400K

600K

800K

1M

Environmental Steps

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Return

predator-prey large

400K

800K

1.2M

1.6M

2M

Environmental Steps

0

20

40

60

80

100

Test Win Rate

3s_vs_5z

400K

800K

1.2M

1.6M

2M

Environmental Steps

0

20

40

60

80

100

Test Win Rate

MMM2

400K

800K

1.2M

1.6M

2M

Environmental Steps

0

20

40

60

80

100

Test Win Rate

27m_vs_30m

E Discussion

E.1 Societal impact

Our research primarily concentrates on the technical and theoretical aspects of multi-agent reinforcement learning, aiming to enhance the performance of these agents across a variety of tasks. While we do not foresee any direct negative consequences arising from our research, we are committed to maintaining an open dialogue. We highly appreciate and value constructive feedback from the community to ensure our work's contributions are beneficial and ethically sound.

E.2 Limitations and future work

Although our proposed simple recycling method has achieved good results across various algorithms, there is still room for further improvement. We have defined dormant neurons and over-active neurons in a straightforward manner. However, their identification should not be limited to normalized activation values. More precise identification could be achieved by considering additional factors such as update gradients and output weights.We studied the phenomenon of dormant neurons in discrete multi-agent environments. Future work should explore whether our method can be extended to continuous environments. Regarding different thresholds and recycling periods, setting a threshold too high or recycling too frequently can disrupt the network's normal learning process. Conversely, low thresholds and infrequent recycling can reduce the effectiveness of the recycling process. Therefore, developing adaptive thresholds and recycling mechanisms will be a key focus of future work.

NeurIPS Paper Checklist

1. Claims

Question: Do the main claims made in the abstract and introduction accurately reflect the paper's contributions and scope?

Answer: [Yes]

Justification: We make the main claims in the abstract and introduction.

Guidelines:

The answer NA means that the abstract and introduction do not include the claims made in the paper.

The abstract and/or introduction should clearly state the claims made, including the contributions made in the paper and important assumptions and limitations. A No or NA answer to this question will not be perceived well by the reviewers.

The claims made should match theoretical and experimental results, and reflect how much the results can be expected to generalize to other settings.

It is fine to include aspirational goals as motivation as long as it is clear that these goals are not attained by the paper.

2. Limitations

Question: Does the paper discuss the limitations of the work performed by the authors?

Answer: [Yes]

Justification: We have discussed limitations and future work in the appendix.

Guidelines:

The answer NA means that the paper has no limitation while the answer No means that the paper has limitations, but those are not discussed in the paper.

The authors are encouraged to create a separate "Limitations" section in their paper.

The paper should point out any strong assumptions and how robust the results are to violations of these assumptions (e.g., independence assumptions, noiseless settings, model well-specification, asymptotic approximations only holding locally). The authors should reflect on how these assumptions might be violated in practice and what the implications would be.

The authors should reflect on the scope of the claims made, e.g., if the approach was only tested on a few datasets or with a few runs. In general, empirical results often depend on implicit assumptions, which should be articulated.

The authors should reflect on the factors that influence the performance of the approach. For example, a facial recognition algorithm may perform poorly when image resolution is low or images are taken in low lighting. Or a speech-to-text system might not be used reliably to provide closed captions for online lectures because it fails to handle technical jargon.

The authors should discuss the computational efficiency of the proposed algorithms and how they scale with dataset size.

If applicable, the authors should discuss possible limitations of their approach to address problems of privacy and fairness.

While the authors might fear that complete honesty about limitations might be used by reviewers as grounds for rejection, a worse outcome might be that reviewers discover limitations that aren't acknowledged in the paper. The authors should use their best judgment and recognize that individual actions in favor of transparency play an important role in developing norms that preserve the integrity of the community. Reviewers will be specifically instructed to not penalize honesty concerning limitations.

3. Theory Assumptions and Proofs

Question: For each theoretical result, does the paper provide the full set of assumptions and a complete (and correct) proof?

Answer: [Yes]

Justification: We provide the full set of assumptions and a complete proof.

Guidelines:

The answer NA means that the paper does not include theoretical results.

All the theorems, formulas, and proofs in the paper should be numbered and crossreferenced.

All assumptions should be clearly stated or referenced in the statement of any theorems.

The proofs can either appear in the main paper or the supplemental material, but if they appear in the supplemental material, the authors are encouraged to provide a short proof sketch to provide intuition.

Inversely, any informal proof provided in the core of the paper should be complemented by formal proofs provided in appendix or supplemental material.

Theorems and Lemmas that the proof relies upon should be properly referenced.

4. Experimental Result Reproducibility

Question: Does the paper fully disclose all the information needed to reproduce the main experimental results of the paper to the extent that it affects the main claims and/or conclusions of the paper (regardless of whether the code and data are provided or not)?

Answer: [Yes]

Justification: We provide the code and fully disclose all the information needed to reproduce the main experimental results of the paper.

Guidelines:

The answer NA means that the paper does not include experiments.

If the paper includes experiments, a No answer to this question will not be perceived well by the reviewers: Making the paper reproducible is important, regardless of whether the code and data are provided or not.

If the contribution is a dataset and/or model, the authors should describe the steps taken to make their results reproducible or verifiable.

Depending on the contribution, reproducibility can be accomplished in various ways. For example, if the contribution is a novel architecture, describing the architecture fully might suffice, or if the contribution is a specific model and empirical evaluation, it may be necessary to either make it possible for others to replicate the model with the same dataset, or provide access to the model. In general. releasing code and data is often one good way to accomplish this, but reproducibility can also be provided via detailed instructions for how to replicate the results, access to a hosted model (e.g., in the case of a large language model), releasing of a model checkpoint, or other means that are appropriate to the research performed.

While NeurIPS does not require releasing code, the conference does require all submissions to provide some reasonable avenue for reproducibility, which may depend on the nature of the contribution. For example

(a) If the contribution is primarily a new algorithm, the paper should make it clear how to reproduce that algorithm.

(b) If the contribution is primarily a new model architecture, the paper should describe the architecture clearly and fully.

(c) If the contribution is a new model (e.g., a large language model), then there should either be a way to access this model for reproducing the results or a way to reproduce the model (e.g., with an open-source dataset or instructions for how to construct the dataset).

(d) We recognize that reproducibility may be tricky in some cases, in which case authors are welcome to describe the particular way they provide for reproducibility. In the case of closed-source models, it may be that access to the model is limited in some way (e.g., to registered users), but it should be possible for other researchers to have some path to reproducing or verifying the results.

5. Open access to data and code

Question: Does the paper provide open access to the data and code, with sufficient instructions to faithfully reproduce the main experimental results, as described in supplemental material?

Answer: [Yes]

Justification: The source code and the data is include in the supplementary file. Following our group's tradition, we will open-source the code and the dataset if the paper is accepted for publication.

Guidelines:

The answer NA means that paper does not include experiments requiring code.

Please see the NeurIPS code and data submission guidelines (https://nips.cc/public/ guides/CodeSubmissionPolicy) for more details.

While we encourage the release of code and data, we understand that this might not be possible, so 'No' is an acceptable answer. Papers cannot be rejected simply for not including code, unless this is central to the contribution (e.g., for a new open-source benchmark).

The instructions should contain the exact command and environment needed to run to reproduce the results. See the NeurIPS code and data submission guidelines (https: //nips.cc/public/guides/CodeSubmissionPolicy) for more details.

The authors should provide instructions on data access and preparation, including how to access the raw data, preprocessed data, intermediate data, and generated data, etc.

The authors should provide scripts to reproduce all experimental results for the new proposed method and baselines. If only a subset of experiments are reproducible, they should state which ones are omitted from the script and why.

At submission time, to preserve anonymity, the authors should release anonymized versions (if applicable).

Providing as much information as possible in supplemental material (appended to the paper) is recommended, but including URLs to data and code is permitted.

6. Experimental Setting/Details

Question: Does the paper specify all the training and test details (e.g., data splits, hyperparameters, how they were chosen, type of optimizer, etc.) necessary to understand the results?

Answer: [Yes]

Justification: We specify all the training and test details.

Guidelines:

The answer NA means that the paper does not include experiments.

The experimental setting should be presented in the core of the paper to a level of detail that is necessary to appreciate the results and make sense of them.

The full details can be provided either with the code, in appendix, or as supplemental material.

7. Experiment Statistical Significance

Question: Does the paper report error bars suitably and correctly defined or other appropriate information about the statistical significance of the experiments?

Answer: [Yes]

Justification: we evaluated using 5 random seeds with 95% confidence intervals.

Guidelines:

The answer NA means that the paper does not include experiments.

The authors should answer "Yes" if the results are accompanied by error bars, confidence intervals, or statistical significance tests, at least for the experiments that support the main claims of the paper.

The factors of variability that the error bars are capturing should be clearly stated (for example, train/test split, initialization, random drawing of some parameter, or overall run with given experimental conditions).

The method for calculating the error bars should be explained (closed form formula, call to a library function, bootstrap, etc.)

The assumptions made should be given (e.g., Normally distributed errors).

It should be clear whether the error bar is the standard deviation or the standard error of the mean.

It is OK to report 1-sigma error bars, but one should state it. The authors should preferably report a 2-sigma error bar than state that they have a 96% CI, if the hypothesis of Normality of errors is not verified.

For asymmetric distributions, the authors should be careful not to show in tables or figures symmetric error bars that would yield results that are out of range (e.g. negative error rates).

If error bars are reported in tables or plots, The authors should explain in the text how they were calculated and reference the corresponding figures or tables in the text.

8. Experiments Compute Resources

Question: For each experiment, does the paper provide sufficient information on the computer resources (type of compute workers, memory, time of execution) needed to reproduce the experiments?

Answer: [Yes]

Justification: We provide sufficient information on the computer resources needed to reproduce the experiments.

Guidelines:

The answer NA means that the paper does not include experiments.

The paper should indicate the type of compute workers CPU or GPU, internal cluster, or cloud provider, including relevant memory and storage.

The paper should provide the amount of compute required for each of the individual experimental runs as well as estimate the total compute.

The paper should disclose whether the full research project required more compute than the experiments reported in the paper (e.g., preliminary or failed experiments that didn't make it into the paper).

9. Code Of Ethics

Question: Does the research conducted in the paper conform, in every respect, with the NeurIPS Code of Ethics https://neurips.cc/public/EthicsGuidelines?

Answer: [Yes]

Justification: Our research conducted in the paper conforms, in every respect, with the NeurIPS Code of Ethics.

Guidelines:

The answer NA means that the authors have not reviewed the NeurIPS Code of Ethics.

If the authors answer No, they should explain the special circumstances that require a deviation from the Code of Ethics.

The authors should make sure to preserve anonymity (e.g., if there is a special consideration due to laws or regulations in their jurisdiction).

10. Broader Impacts

Question: Does the paper discuss both potential positive societal impacts and negative societal impacts of the work performed?

Answer: [Yes]

Justification: We have discussed both potential positive societal impacts and negative societal impacts of the work performed.

Guidelines:

The answer NA means that there is no societal impact of the work performed.

If the authors answer NA or No, they should explain why their work has no societal impact or why the paper does not address societal impact.

Examples of negative societal impacts include potential malicious or unintended uses (e.g., disinformation, generating fake profiles, surveillance), fairness considerations (e.g., deployment of technologies that could make decisions that unfairly impact specific groups), privacy considerations, and security considerations.

The conference expects that many papers will be foundational research and not tied to particular applications, let alone deployments. However, if there is a direct path to any negative applications, the authors should point it out. For example, it is legitimate to point out that an improvement in the quality of generative models could be used to generate deepfakes for disinformation. On the other hand, it is not needed to point out that a generic algorithm for optimizing neural networks could enable people to train models that generate Deepfakes faster.

The authors should consider possible harms that could arise when the technology is being used as intended and functioning correctly, harms that could arise when the technology is being used as intended but gives incorrect results, and harms following from (intentional or unintentional) misuse of the technology.

If there are negative societal impacts, the authors could also discuss possible mitigation strategies (e.g., gated release of models, providing defenses in addition to attacks, mechanisms for monitoring misuse, mechanisms to monitor how a system learns from feedback over time, improving the efficiency and accessibility of ML).

11. Safeguards

Question: Does the paper describe safeguards that have been put in place for responsible release of data or models that have a high risk for misuse (e.g., pretrained language models, image generators, or scraped datasets)?

Answer: [Yes]

Justification: Our paper poses no such risks.

Guidelines:

The answer NA means that the paper poses no such risks.

Released models that have a high risk for misuse or dual-use should be released with necessary safeguards to allow for controlled use of the model, for example by requiring that users adhere to usage guidelines or restrictions to access the model or implementing safety filters.

Datasets that have been scraped from the Internet could pose safety risks. The authors should describe how they avoided releasing unsafe images.

We recognize that providing effective safeguards is challenging, and many papers do not require this, but we encourage authors to take this into account and make a best faith effort.

12. Licenses for existing assets

Question: Are the creators or original owners of assets (e.g., code, data, models), used in the paper, properly credited and are the license and terms of use explicitly mentioned and properly respected?

Answer: [Yes]

Justification: We properly credited assets and respected the license and mentioned terms of use explicitly.

Guidelines:

The answer NA means that the paper does not use existing assets.

The authors should cite the original paper that produced the code package or dataset.

The authors should state which version of the asset is used and, if possible, include a URL.

The name of the license (e.g., CC-BY 4.0) should be included for each asset.

For scraped data from a particular source (e.g., website), the copyright and terms of service of that source should be provided.

If assets are released, the license, copyright information, and terms of use in the package should be provided. For popular datasets, paperswithcode.com/datasets has curated licenses for some datasets. Their licensing guide can help determine the license of a dataset.

For existing datasets that are re-packaged, both the original license and the license of the derived asset (if it has changed) should be provided.

If this information is not available online, the authors are encouraged to reach out to the asset's creators.

13. New Assets

Question: Are new assets introduced in the paper well documented and is the documentation provided alongside the assets?

Answer: [Yes]

Justification: We introduced new assets and documented them thoroughly in the paper, providing the documentation alongside the assets. The code of this work in included in the supplementary materials.

Guidelines:

The answer NA means that the paper does not release new assets.

Researchers should communicate the details of the dataset/code/model as part of their submissions via structured templates. This includes details about training, license, limitations, etc.

The paper should discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose asset is used.

At submission time, remember to anonymize your assets (if applicable). You can either create an anonymized URL or include an anonymized zip file.

14. Crowdsourcing and Research with Human Subjects

Question: For crowdsourcing experiments and research with human subjects, does the paper include the full text of instructions given to participants and screenshots, if applicable, as well as details about compensation (if any)?

Answer: [NA]

Justification: Our paper does not involve crowdsourcing nor research with human subjects. Guidelines:

The answer NA means that the paper does not involve crowdsourcing nor research with human subjects.

Including this information in the supplemental material is fine, but if the main contribution of the paper involves human subjects, then as much detail as possible should be included in the main paper.

According to the NeurIPS Code of Ethics, workers involved in data collection, curation, or other labor should be paid at least the minimum wage in the country of the data collector.

15. Institutional Review Board (IRB) Approvals or Equivalent for Research with Human Subjects

Question: Does the paper describe potential risks incurred by study participants, whether such risks were disclosed to the subjects, and whether Institutional Review Board (IRB) approvals (or an equivalent approval/review based on the requirements of your country or institution) were obtained?

Answer: [NA]

Justification: Our paper does not involve crowdsourcing nor research with human subjects. Guidelines:

The answer NA means that the paper does not involve crowdsourcing nor research with human subjects.

Depending on the country in which research is conducted, IRB approval (or equivalent) may be required for any human subjects research. If you obtained IRB approval, you should clearly state this in the paper.

We recognize that the procedures for this may vary significantly between institutions and locations, and we expect authors to adhere to the NeurIPS Code of Ethics and the guidelines for their institution.

For initial submissions, do not include any information that would break anonymity (if applicable), such as the institution conducting the review.

Peer reviews:
comments: SUMMARY:
The paper proposes ReBorn to reactivate dormant neurons in the mixing network of multiagent value-mixing algorithms. Specifically, ReBorn transfers the weights from overweight neurons to dormant neurons and this method ensures the learned action preferences are not changed after the ReBorn operation. Experiments on SMAC, predator-prey, and SMACv2 demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed method.

STRENGTHS:
1.	The idea is novel and the motivation is well-explained.
2.	Experiments on different scenarios show that ReBorn improves the performance of different baselines.
3.	The authors theoretically prove that ReBorn would not affect the learned action preferences.

WEAKNESSES:
1.	It seems that the ReBorn operation is time-consuming as it needs to compute and manipulate each neuron in the network. If the network is large, this ReBorn operation may become infeasible.
2.	The ReBorn is only validated in the multiagent value-mixing algorithms.

QUESTIONS:
1.	Could the authors compare the running time of the baselines and their ReBorn variants?
2.	Could ReBorn be applied to other MARL algorithms besides the multiagent value-mixing algorithms such as MAPPO and MADDPG?

LIMITATIONS:
NA.
TITLE: Official Review
SOUNDNESS_CORRECTNESS: 3
DATE: 2024-07-08

{"IS_META_REVIEW": false, "comments": "SUMMARY:\nThis paper introduces a novel approach for tackling the plasticity loss and securing sample efficiency in multi agent reinforcement learning (MARL). Different from the methods in single agent RL, this paper also shows the importance of not violating the knowledge invariant (KI) principle in MARL. With careful analysis and extensive experiments, the proposed method, ReBorn, outperforms other baselines such as ReDo or Reset. The authors said that the baselines, ReDo and Reset, violate the KI principle, thus they are not appropriate to be applied to MARL setting. However, the proposed method, ReBorn, can satisfy the KI principle, leading to achieve remarkable performance.\n\nSTRENGTHS:\n- One of the most important part in this paper, the KI principle, is well defined, and can represent the constraints in MARL setting. Due to the difficulty of satisfying this principle, applying previous methods is not straightforward. Nevertheless, the proposed method, ReBorn, does not violate this principle, and outperforms the baselines.\n\n- Scaling the input and output weights connected to overweight neurons is a novel approach for resolving the plasticity loss problem in Rl community. This paper pointed out the drawback of ReDo in MARL scenario, and proposed a novel approach.\n\nWEAKNESSES:\n- The motivation behind scaling the weights in ReBorn is not clear. Though scaling the weights to ease the strength of the overweight neurons is straightforward, is it only way to reduce the number of overweight neurons? I'm quite confusing why we should use the scaling approach in ReBorn.\n\n- I think there is a missing baseline [1]. This approach can also effectively resolve the plasticity loss problem, and achieves high sample efficiency in singe agent RL. Although this approach violates the KI principle, with high replay ratio, it may achieve good performance in MARL setting. Similar to [1], a recently proposed method [2]  show that resetting the network and training the network with high replay ratio in MARL setting can outperform the baselines. I know it is difficult to  compare ReBorn and the method in [2] at submission phase, but I wonder the method in [2] violating the KI principle is truly failed to overcome the plasticity loss.\n\n\n[1] D'Oro et. al. ,Sample-Efficient Reinforcement Learning by Breaking the Replay Ratio Barrier, ICLR, 2023\n\n[2] Yang et. al., Sample-Efficient Multiagent Reinforcement Learning with Reset Replay, ICML, 2024\n\nQUESTIONS:\nAlready mentioned in the Weakness section.\n\nLIMITATIONS:\nN/A", "TITLE": "Official Review", "RECOMMENDATION": 5, "REVIEWER_CONFIDENCE": 4, "SOUNDNESS_CORRECTNESS": 3, "DATE": "2024-07-09"}

{"IS_META_REVIEW": false, "comments": "SUMMARY:\nThe paper explores the dormant neuron phenomenon, an active research topic in RL, in the context of MARL value factorization. It describes how dormant neurons manifest mostly in the mixing network, details their effect on performance and connects them to an opposite but correlated phenomenon, overweight neurons. The paper proposes a method to counter the dormant neuron phenomenon by redistributing the weights of overweight neurons among dormant neurons. In MARL value factorization, the proposed method is demonstrated to outperform general RL methods for dealing with dormant neurons.\n\nSTRENGTHS:\nThe paper text is easy to read and understand, and the problem the paper investigates is important and topical. Evaluation shows that, on two environments, the proposed method (ReBorn) is clearly better than general RL methods used to solve this problem. The discussion on the existence of overweight neurons is also significant for the field outside of the specific problem setting.\n\nWEAKNESSES:\nThe figures and figure captions are often hard to understand. Some plots are hard to interpret solely from the plot and caption text, e.g. to understand what 'Number' means in Figure 2a, one must look for explanations in the text body. Another example is Figure 4, which the reader is referred to for a depiction of the main method of the paper, but contains a total of 8 words in legends and caption combined. In contrast, the figures themselves are visually clear to understand.\nThis problem can be easily fixed by expanding some of the captions and using more expressive wording in figure legends and titles. I am willing to raise my score if the figures are presented in a more readable manner.\n\nQUESTIONS:\nSuggestion:\nEvaluation on more environments could strengthen the paper's claim of superiority over other methods. However, I find the current evaluation experiments sufficient to make that claim.\n\nLIMITATIONS:\nLimitation are not discussed in the main section, only in the appendix.", "TITLE": "Official Review", "RECOMMENDATION": 7, "REVIEWER_CONFIDENCE": 3, "SOUNDNESS_CORRECTNESS": 4, "DATE": "2024-07-12"}

{"IS_META_REVIEW": false, "comments": "SUMMARY:\nThis work proposes a new method for resetting dormant neurons in multi-agent RL settings. It replicates previous observations on unit dormancy in deep RL in the multi-agent regime, finding that inactive neurons are correlated with reduced ability to improve performance. The proposed method differs from ReDO, which resets dormant neurons' incoming weights to that of a random initialization, by distributing the weights of highly active \"overweight\" neurons among those identified as dormant during reset steps so as to avoid changing the output of the network.\n\nSTRENGTHS:\n- The paper identifies additional factors, beyond those present in single-agent deep RL, which impact the dormancy rate in a neural network, in particular showing that in QMIX and QPLEX algorithms, the *mixing* network is most vulnerable to dormancy. It also shows that increasing the number of agents, which presumably also increases the degree of nonstationarity in the problem, also increases the number of dormant units.\n- The knowledge invariant principle, while not entirely novel (see, e.g. the approach of Nikishin et al. which is precisely motivated by the desire to avoid changing the network's outputs after a reset), is clearly relevant for multi-agent settings, where changing many agents' policies at once introduces greater instability than the (potentially beneficial) exploratory interpretation of parameter perturbations in single-agent algorithms.\n- The observation that the accumulation of dormant neurons is accompanied by accumulation of 'overweight' neurons is sensible and points to an interesting alternative approach to maintaining plasticity: rather than focusing on resetting units which are not receiving gradients, it may be beneficial to re-distribute utility across the units in a layer. The proposed solution makes a lot of sense from this framing.\n\nWEAKNESSES:\nI have two main concerns with this paper which prevent me from confidently recommending its acceptance: the first is the validity of the theoretical results, and the second is signficance of the empirical results. I list more minor concerns later, which may benefit the paper but which will not affect my decision.\n\n- Major: while it is true that a parameter perturbation which changes the rankings of global actions can cause a function which previously satisfied the IGM principle to violate it, such a perturbation would also violate the assumption on the monotonicity of the global value w.r.t. agent utilities which is baked into methods like QMIX. Indeed, the proof of Theorem 1 does not provide a concrete example of a perturbation to the network parameters which violate the KI principle and violate the IGM principle, as such an example which satisfies [B.5] would require non-monotonicity of the mixing function. Since the algorithms studied in the paper do use monotone mixing functions, Theorem 1 does not seem relevant. \n\n- Major: I could not find anything in the proof of Theorem 2 which depends on the particular form of the ReBorn update. Instead it seems that Theorem 2 depends on the monotonicity of the QMIX mixing network (b.10), rather than any particular property of the perturbation to $\\hat{\\theta}$. This further reinforces the above concern that the proposed failing of parameter perturbation methods in the general case of Theorem 1 is in fact only a product of relaxing the assumption on the monotonicity of the mixing network.\n    \n- Major: In many instances, using ReDo appears to hurt performance compared to naive QMIX, despite reducing the dormancy percentage. Further, it appears that in some environments, applying ReDo does not change the number of dormant neurons. This causes me to wonder if the ReDo method has been appropriately tuned for the domains it is being applied to. \n\n- Minor: to me, a better name for the so-called 'overweight' neurons would be 'over-active', since it's not clear that the cause of their disproportionate activity is due to the magnitude of their weights or to the alignment of their incoming weights with the previous layer's features. This also makes it more clear their relationship with dormant neurons.\n\n- Minor: there are a few grammatical issues in the paper that would benefit from review. For example, the word 'albeit' is typically used at the start of a phrase, and not a clause as is often done in the paper, where it can generally be replaced with 'although'.\n\nQUESTIONS:\n1. Can the authors comment on how they tuned ReDo and give some insight into why it seems to not have any effect on the number of dormant units in Figure 6?\n2. Please address my questions regarding theorems 1 and 2. Are there instances where even with a monotone mixing network, a parameter-perturbing method will fail to satisfy IGM?\n\nLIMITATIONS:\nYes", "TITLE": "Official Review", "RECOMMENDATION": 5, "REVIEWER_CONFIDENCE": 4, "SOUNDNESS_CORRECTNESS": 2, "DATE": "2024-07-14"}