Papers › Counterfactual Multi-Agent Policy Gradients

Counterfactual Multi-Agent Policy Gradients

24 May 2017arXiv:1705.08926archive 2025-07-28

Jakob Foerster, Gregory Farquhar, Triantafyllos Afouras, Nantas Nardelli, Shimon Whiteson

Cooperative multi-agent systems can be naturally used to model many real world problems, such as network packet routing and the coordination of autonomous vehicles. There is a great need for new reinforcement learning methods that can efficiently learn decentralised policies for such systems. To this end, we propose a new multi-agent actor-critic method called counterfactual multi-agent (COMA) policy gradients. COMA uses a centralised critic to estimate the Q-function and decentralised actors to optimise the agents' policies. In addition, to address the challenges of multi-agent credit assignment, it uses a counterfactual baseline that marginalises out a single agent's action, while keeping the other agents' actions fixed. COMA also uses a critic representation that allows the counterfactual baseline to be computed efficiently in a single forward pass. We evaluate COMA in the testbed of StarCraft unit micromanagement, using a decentralised variant with significant partial observability. COMA significantly improves average performance over other multi-agent actor-critic methods in this setting, and the best performing agents are competitive with state-of-the-art centralised controllers that get access to the full state.

PaperPDFCodeCode Syntology ran

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="1705.08926")

Code

Syntology Ran 1 of 1 code samples harvested from 1 repository linked to this paper; 0 have no recorded run. Of those that ran: 1 ran · our draft was wrong.

By repository: community (archive-listed): 1 sample from 1 repository, 1 ran. The run record, sample by sample. “Ran” means executed on a synthesized input, not that the code is correct or reproduces the paper.

TonghanWang/NDQ mentioned on GitHubpytorch report
gingkg/smac mentioned on GitHubpytorchMIT report
hanhanAnderson/LSF-SAC mentioned on GitHubpytorchApache-2.0 report
nice-hku/cl2marl-smac mentioned on GitHubpytorch report
puyuan1996/MARL mentioned on GitHubpytorch report

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. 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

1 sample harvested; 1 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 0 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.

1ran · our draft was wrong

Licence: 1 of the 1 sample is 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 matteokarldonati/Counterfactual-Multi-Agent-Policy-Gradients. “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.

moving_average matteokarldonati/Counterfactual-Multi-Agent-Policy-Gradients/training_loop.py community (archive-listed) ran · our draft was wrong fingerprinted no licence file found · pointer only · 86c01369f50fdee8 · report

Tasks

Autonomous VehiclesReinforcement LearningSMAC+Starcraft

1 archive task tag without a task page not shown.

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

TaskDatasetModelMetricValueRank at snapshotLeaderboardReport
SMAC+ Def_Armored_parallel COMA Median Win Rate 0.0 #7 of 10 Archive leaderboard report
SMAC+ Def_Armored_sequential COMA Median Win Rate 0.0 #9 of 11 Archive leaderboard report
SMAC+ Def_Infantry_parallel COMA Median Win Rate 50.0 #6 of 10 Archive leaderboard report
SMAC+ Def_Infantry_sequential COMA Median Win Rate 28.1 #11 of 11 Archive leaderboard report
SMAC+ Def_Outnumbered_parallel COMA Median Win Rate 0.0 #5 of 10 Archive leaderboard report
SMAC+ Def_Outnumbered_sequential COMA Median Win Rate 0.0 #5 of 11 Archive leaderboard report
SMAC+ Off_Complicated_parallel COMA Median Win Rate 0.0 #5 of 10 Archive leaderboard report
SMAC+ Off_Complicated_sequential COMA Median Win Rate 0.0 #3 of 4 Archive leaderboard report
SMAC+ Off_Distant_parallel COMA Median Win Rate 0.0 #4 of 10 Archive leaderboard report
SMAC+ Off_Distant_sequential COMA Median Win Rate 0.0 #3 of 4 Archive leaderboard report
SMAC+ Off_Hard_parallel COMA Median Win Rate 0.0 #4 of 10 Archive leaderboard report
SMAC+ Off_Hard_sequential COMA Median Win Rate 0.0 #4 of 4 Archive leaderboard report
SMAC+ Off_Near_parallel COMA Median Win Rate 20.0 #4 of 10 Archive leaderboard report
SMAC+ Off_Near_sequential COMA Median Win Rate 0.0 #4 of 4 Archive leaderboard report
SMAC+ Off_Superhard_parallel COMA Median Win Rate 0.0 #2 of 10 Archive leaderboard report
SMAC+ Off_Superhard_sequential COMA Median Win Rate 0.0 #2 of 4 Archive leaderboard report

Ranks are positions in the archive's leaderboards as they stood at the 2025-07-28 snapshot. Results published since then are not among these rows, so a rank here is not a current standing.

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