1 / 14

Multi-agent Reinforcement Learning in a Dynamic Environment

Multi-agent Reinforcement Learning in a Dynamic Environment. The research goal is to enable multiple agents to learn suitable behaviors in a dynamic environment using reinforcement learning.

eydie
Télécharger la présentation

Multi-agent Reinforcement Learning in a Dynamic Environment

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Multi-agent Reinforcement Learningin a Dynamic Environment • The research goal is to enable multiple agents to learn suitable behaviors in a dynamic environment using reinforcement learning. • We found that this approach could be available to create cooperative behavior among the agents without any prior-knowledge. Footnote : Work done by Sachiyo Arai, Katia Sycara

  2. Agent Input LookUp Action E Environment State Table Action Environment Recognizer Selector W S, a ( ) Learner Reward Reinforcement Learning Approach Feature: • The Reward won’t be given immediately after agent’s action. • Usually, it will be given only after achieving the goal. • This delayed reward is the only clue to agent’s learning. Overview: • TD [Sutton 88], Q-learning [Watkins 92] • Agent can estimate a model of state transition probabilities of E(Environment), if E has a fixedstate transition probability (; E is a MDPs) . • Profit sharing [Grefensttette 88] • Agent can estimate a model of state transition probabilities of E, even though Edoes not have a fixedstate transition probability. c.f. Dynamic programming • Agent needs to have a perfect model of state transition probabilities of E.

  3. Episode xt+1 xT G xt x1 wn+1(xt, at) wn(xt, at) + f (rT,t) rT 0 0 0 rT Real Reward of each time step Assigned Reward of each time step f time 0 1 t t+1 T Episode: (s,a1) - (s,a1) - (s,a1) - (s,a2) - (G) r1 r2 r3 r4 Irrational assignment : (r1+r2+r3) >= r4 e.g.: r1=r2=r3=r4=100 　 -> W(S,a1)>W(S,a2) Rational assignment : (r1+r2+r3 ) < r4 e.g :r1=12, r2=25, r3=50,r4=100 -> W(S,a1)<W(S,a2)　 Our Approach : Profit Sharing Plan (PSP) Usually, Multi-agent’s Environment is non-Markovian. Because : transition probability from St to St+1 could vary. Due to : agents’ “concurrent learning” and “perceptual aliasing”. PSP is Robust against non-Markovian, Because : PSP does not require the environment to have a fixed transition probability from St to St+1. f : Reinforcement function for atemporal credit assignment. [Rationality Theorem] to suppress ineffective rules t ∀t=1,2,….TL∑fj< ft+1 j=0 (L : the number of available actions at each time step.) Example: a1 In this environment, a1 should be reinforced less than a2 100 S G a2 rT: reward at time T (Goal) Wn : weight of the state-action pair after nepisodes, (xt, at) : state and action at time t of n-th episode.

  4. Initial State Goal State 2. Pursuit Game 3Hunters and multiple Preys Torus Triangular World, Required Agents’ Cooperative work includes Task Scheduling to capture the preys. Initial State First Goal State Second Goal State １ １ ２ ２ ２ Hunter Prey Our Experiments 1. Pursuit Game 4Hunters and 1Prey Torus Grid World, Required Agents’ Cooperative work to capture the prey. 3. Neo “Block World” domain 3 groups of evacuees and 3 shelters of varying degree of safety Grid World, Required Agents’ Cooperative work includes Conflict Resolution andInformation Sharing to evacuate.

  5. LookUp Table W (S, a ) Agent Agent Experiment 1 : 4Hunters and 1 Prey Pursuit Game Objective: To make sure that cooperative behavior is emerged by Profit Sharing. Hypothesis: Cooperative Behavior, such as Result sharing, Task sharing and Conflict resolution will be emerged. Setting : Torus Grid World, Size: 15x15, Sight size of each agent: 5x5. - Each hunter modifies its own lookup table by PSP independently. - Hunters and Prey are located randomly at initial state of each episode. - Hunters learn by PSP and Prey move randomly. Modeling : Each hunter consists of State Recognizer, Action Selector, LookUp Table, and PSP module as a learner. 4 Hunters 1 Prey Agent = Hunter Input Action Action Selector State Recognizer Reward Profit Sharing Agent

  6. Experiment 1 : Results 1. Emerged Behavior 2. Convergence 14 16 14 3 17 15 2 15 1 16 18 16 19 17 1 4 17 1 18 20 22 18 24 23 19 2 19 22 20,21 3 25 20 24 23 4 24,25 23 22 21 25 5 18-25 15-17 6,7 11, 12 10 13 9 14 6 7 8,9 8 1-5 • 3. Discussion • A hunter takes advantage of other hunters as a landmark to capture the prey. (Result sharing) • 2. Each hunter plays its own role for capturing the prey.(Task sharing) • 3. No deadlock or conflict situation will happen if each hunter follows its own strategy, • after learning.(Conflict resolution) 10,11 7 8,9 2 3 2 1 4 5 6-8 6 10,11 12,13 9,10 : Trace of Hunter1 14 5 12 11,12 : Trace of Hunter2 : Trace of Hunter3 13 13 15 4 : Trace of Hunter4 : Trace of Prey p 3

  7. LookUp Table W (S, a ) 3 Hunters 2 Prey 1 ２ Agent Agent Experiment 2 : 3 Hunters and Multiple Prey Pursuit Game Objective: To make sure that “Task Scheduling” knowledge is emerged by PSP in the environment of conjunctive multiple goals. Which Proverb is true in the Reinforcement learning agents ? proverb 1.He who runs after two hares will catch neither. proverb 2. Kill two birds with one stone. Hypothesis: If the agent know about location of “prey and other agents”, agent realize proverb 2, but sensory limitation makes them behave like proverb 1. Setting: Torus Triangular World where 7 triangles are on each edge. - Sight size ; 5 triangles on each edge, 7 triangles on each edge. - Prey moves randomly. - Each hunter modifies its own lookup table by PSP independently. Modeling : Each hunter consists of State Recognizer, Action Selector, LookUp Table, and PSP module as a learner. Agent = Hunter Input Action State Recognizer Action Selector Reward Profit Sharing

  8. Experiment 2 : Results 1. Convergence • 2. Discussion • Without global scheduling mechanism, hunters capture the prey in reasonable order. (e.g. capture closest prey first.) • The larger the number of prey in the environment, the more steps are required • to capture the 1st prey . • Because it is getting more difficult to coordinate decision of each hunter’s target. • This facts implies that target of each hunter is scattered. (Proverb 1) • The required steps to capture the “last prey” in the multiple prey environment is less than that to capture the “1st prey” in the single prey environment. • This facts implies that hunters pursuit multiple prey simultaneously.(Proverb 2)

  9. Neo Domain No.1 Agent Agent Experiment 3 : Neo “Block World” domain -No.1- Objective: To make sure that “Opportunistic” knowledge is emerged by PSP in the environment of disjunctive multiple goals. When there are more than 1 alternatives to get rewards in the environment, agent can behave reasonably ? Hypothesis: If the agent knows about location of “safe places” correctly, each agent can select the best place to evacuate, but sensory limitation makes them back and forth in confusion. Setting : Graph World ; Size 15 x 15. Sight size ; 7 x 7. - 2 groups of evacuees, 2 shelter groups. - Each group of evacuees learns by PSP independently. - The groups and Shelters are located randomly at initial state of each episode. Input of Group: 7x7 sized agent’s own input; no input sharing. Output of Group: {walk-north, walk-south, walk-east, walk-west, stay} Reward : -Each group gets a reward only when it moves into the shelter. - The amount of reward is dependent on the degree of shelter’s safety. - Shelter has unlimited capacity. Modeling : Each hunter consists of State Recognizer, Action Selector, LookUp Table, and PSP module as a learner.

  10. Available path Safe node A group of evacuees Experiment 3 : Results 1. Convergence Unavailable path 2. Discussion 1. Agents learned so that they could get larger amount of reward. So, if the reward amount of shelter1’s is same as the one of shelter2’s, they learned stochastic policies. On the other hand, if their amount difference is large, they learned the deterministic policies which seems to be nearly optimal . 2. In the latter case (reward difference is large), the other agent works as a landmark to search the shelter.

  11. Experiment 4 : Neo “Block World” domain Objective: To make sure of the effects of “Sharing Sensory Information” on the agents’ learning and their behaviors. Hypothesis: Sharing their sensory input increases the amount of state spaces, and the required time to converge. But the policy of the agents become more optimal than that of agents without sharing information, because it reduces perceptual aliasing problem of the agents. Setting : Graph World ; Size 15 x 15. Sight size ; 7 x 7. - 3 groups of evacuees, 3 shelters. - Each group of evacuees learns by PSP independently. - The groups are located randomly at initial state of each episode. Input of Group: 7x7 sized agent’s own input, plus, information from Blackboard. Output of Group:{walk-north, walk-south, walk-east, walk-west, stay} Reward : -Each group gets a reward only when it moves into the shelter. - The degree of safety is the same for each shelter. - The rewards are not shared among the agents. - Shelter has unlimited capacity.

  12. Experiment 4 : Neo “Block World” domain -No.2- Modeling : • Model1 Each hunter consists of State Recognizer, Action Selector, LookUp Table, PSP module as a learner. Agents share the sensory input by means of B.B. , combine them with their own input. BlackBoard Other Agents Environment Agent Observation: Ot Ot={O1,O2,…,Om} (t=1,..,T) LookUp Table Wnml(O, a ) Size m*l Action: at At={a1,a2,…,al} (t=1,..,T) State Recognizer Action Selector Profit Sharing f (Rn, Oj) (j=1,..,T) Reward Rn(t=T)n

  13. Experiment 4 : Results 1. Convergence 2. Discussion 1. In the Initial Stage: The required steps to shelter of a Non-sharing-Agent reduces faster than that of a Sharing-Agent.Non-sharing-Agent seems to be able to generalize the state and behave rationally even in inexperienced state. On the other hand, Sharing-Agent needs to experience discriminated state spaces, the numbers of which is larger than generalized state space. Therefore, it takes longer time to reduce the number of steps than Non-sharing agent does. 2. In the Final Stage: The performance of a Sharing-Agent is better than that of a Non-Sharing-Agent.Non-sharing-Agent seems to overgeneralize the spaces and to be confused by aliases. On the other hand, Sharing-Agent seems to refine the policy successfully and hard to be confused.

  14. Conclusion • Agent learns suitable behaviors in a dynamic environment including multiple agents and goals, if there are no aliasing due to the sensory limitation, concurrent learning of other agents, and the existence of multiple sources of reward. • The strict division of the state space causes the state explosion and the worse performance in the early stage of learning. Future Works • Development of the structured mechanism of Reinforcement Learning . Hypothesis : Structured mechanism facilitates knowledge transfer. • Agent learns knowledge about appropriate generalization level of the state spaces. • Agent learns knowledge about appropriate amount of communication with others. • Competitive Learning • Agents compete for resources. • We need to resolve structural credit assignment problem.

More Related