Papers › Empirical Study on Robustness and Resilience in Cooperative Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning
Empirical Study on Robustness and Resilience in Cooperative Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning
Simin Li, Zihao Mao, Hanxiao Li, Zonglei Jing, Zhuohang bian, Jun Guo, Li Wang, Zhuoran Han, Ruixiao Xu, Xin Yu, Chengdong Ma, Yuqing Ma, Bo An, Yaodong Yang, Weifeng Lv, Xianglong Liu
Title, abstract, authors and date from arXiv's metadata (CC0); this paper is not in the Papers with Code archive (frozen 2025-07-28).
In cooperative Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning (MARL), it is a common practice to tune hyperparameters in ideal simulated environments to maximize cooperative performance. However, policies tuned for cooperation often fail to maintain robustness and resilience under real-world uncertainties. Building trustworthy MARL systems requires a deep understanding of robustness, which ensures stability under uncertainties, and resilience, the ability to recover from disruptions--a concept extensively studied in control systems but largely overlooked in MARL. In this paper, we present a large-scale empirical study comprising over 82,620 experiments to evaluate cooperation, robustness, and resilience in MARL across 4 real-world environments, 13 uncertainty types, and 15 hyperparameters. Our key findings are: (1) Under mild uncertainty, optimizing cooperation improves robustness and resilience, but this link weakens as perturbations intensify. Robustness and resilience also varies by algorithm and uncertainty type. (2) Robustness and resilience do not generalize across uncertainty modalities or agent scopes: policies robust to action noise for all agents may fail under observation noise on a single agent. (3) Hyperparameter tuning is critical for trustworthy MARL: surprisingly, standard practices like parameter sharing, GAE, and PopArt can hurt robustness, while early stopping, high critic learning rates, and Leaky ReLU consistently help. By optimizing hyperparameters only, we observe substantial improvement in cooperation, robustness and resilience across all MARL backbones, with the phenomenon also generalizing to robust MARL methods across these backbones. Code and results available at https://github.com/BUAA-TrustworthyMARL/adv_marl_benchmark .
In Syntology Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.
For agents, Syntology's MCP tool lists every function and class Syntology harvested from this paper and whether it ran (how to connect): get_harvested_code_for_paper(arxiv_id="2510.11824")
Code
Syntology Ran 2 of 4 code samples harvested from 1 repository linked to this paper; 2 have no recorded run. Of those that ran: 2 ran with no contract checked.
By repository: found in paper text by Syntology: 4 samples from 1 repository, 2 ran. The run record, sample by sample. “Ran” means executed on a synthesized input, not that the code is correct or reproduces the paper.
Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
4 samples harvested; 2 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 2 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.
Licence: 4 of the 4 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.
Harvested from BUAA-TrustworthyMARL/adv_marl_benchmark. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.
Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.
Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.
c99d4a67dd62d6b9 · report
343918f81a5b2114 · report
0d38522e0dfa4e40 · report
45f77fabdb24e54a · report
Results from the paper
The Papers with Code archive ends with its 2025-07-28 snapshot. This paper's arXiv identifier, 2510.11824, was issued in October 2025, after that date, so the archive has no leaderboard rows for it.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections