Enhancing Cooperative Problem-Solving in Sparse-Reward Systems via Co-evolutionary Curriculum Learning
Reinforcement Learning;Task Learning
Yes
No ethics review needed.
- In Formula 3, why can we directly measure the agents and tasks? Does this mean the distance between states? This seems only feasible in some simple tasks. 
- In Formula 4, Why is it designed this way? 
- Can the author provide learning curves? It seems that only the ablation study provides curves.
- Why are Variational Individual-perspective Crossover and Mutation more efficient?
- Other works that combine evolutionary algorithms and MARL should be introduced and compared in the related work section [1].

If the author can address my questions, I will consider raising the score, but the current version does not meet NeurIPS's high standards.

--- 

[1] RACE: Improve Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning with Representation Asymmetry and Collaborative Evolution
- Integrating curriculum learning with evolutionary algorithms to solve the difficult problem of multi-agent cooperation in MAS is a promising research direction.
This paper primarily integrates co-evolution and curriculum learning to address the issues brought by the quality of reward signals in MARL and the increased number of agents. The proposed CMCL method evolves the curriculum to solve the target tasks more efficiently. CMCL outperforms the baselines in MPE and Hide and Seek.
- The logical structure of the paper needs further improvement. It is recommended that the author provide a clear chapter arrangement and introduction at the beginning of Chapter 4.
- The experimental section is relatively weak, the environment tasks are too simple, and no learning curves are provided. Figures 3 and 4 do not provide the variance.
- The overall writing of the paper has many issues. Many parts need thorough proofreading to make the paper more rigorous. For example, it should be f^{\widetilde}_{all}. The font bolding within formulas and texts is inconsistent, formula 8 lacks proper spacing, and the reasoning behind why this design is effective has not been clearly explained.
- The ablation study lacks results for using only mutation. CMCL has many hyperparameters that need to be tuned, but the paper does not provide an analysis.
Yes
N/A
No ethics review needed.
- I think my opinion would change the greatest if the authors can provide a theoretical background behind the design choices they have made and/or if they can compare their ideas with curricular approaches in multiagent domain. 

- How is crossover done in this paper? How are tasks represented and encoded in this paper?

- In line 249, what is 'better initial policy performance' referring to? Better than what? and why does it has to be better?

- Figure 3 is not showing standard deviations between the graph.

- In regards to using evolutionary algorithms for curriculum design in multiagent environments, I wonder how the author's paper would compare to this relatively recent paper, Genetic Algorithm for Curriculum Design in Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning by Song et al, 2024. The paper uses evolutionary algorithms for curriculum generation in multiagent environments and has been shown to work quite well in collaborative setups with the MPE benchmarks so I think it would be a interesting to see how the submission 13141 compares with this one. Whether the authors of submission 13141 are going for a revision or a resubmit, this paper would be an interesting related work. Please note that this paper is quite recent and while incorporating this paper in to the revision will certainly improve my score, I haven't and will not reduce my review score for not including this paper as the paper was accepted in CoRL only a month before the ICLR deadline.
The authors clearly mark why sparse reward problem can especially be a challenge in multiagent environment.
This paper attempts to address the issue of sparse-reward problem which can make a multi-agent learning problem much more difficult. Using a co-evolutionary algorithm, the authors attempt to generate intermediate tasks to each agents as well as co-evolve the environment and the agents to enhance training in sparse-reward multi-agent environment. The authors include an empirical comparison with the several curricular RL algorithms in multi-agent benchmarks such as the Multi-agent Particle Environment (MPE).
- While the authors have delivered the motivations of the paper quite well, I feel that the paper's drawback is the lack of theoretical foundations. There is a lack of theoretical background on why the author's algorithm would work well. In addition, I would like to hear more about why the authors decided to choose a specific type of structure when designing their algorithm. What are the motivations of the decisions? any engineering or theoretical considerations?

- While the authors have included several notable baselines in the recent years, I think it would have been nicer to include more baselines in the multiagent domain as this paper is about multiagent domain. There are several useful works, such as Policy Space Response Oracle (Lanctot et al, 2017) if the authors are looking for baselines with more theoretical background, as well as papers in multi-robot teaming if the authors are looking for baselines with more engineering based decisions.

- I think the overall writting can be improved as well. While there weren't that many major typos or incomplete sentences that made reading difficult, I think the structure can be improved. For example, in line 246, the authors mention that the details of MAPPO will not be discussed in this paper, and says the same thing again in less then 10 lines down.
Yes
No ethics review needed.
See the Weaknesses.
The research question addressed in this paper—leveraging curriculum learning to enhance reinforcement learning—is both relevant and significant for broader reinforcement learning tasks.
This paper introduces an evolutionary curriculum learning approach aimed at mitigating the sparse-reward issue in multi-agent learning environments. In general, the quality of the paper, including the presentation, the method and the experiments, is pretty low.
- The presentation lacks clarity and structure.
-  The use of an evolutionary algorithm in the proposed method lacks novelty.
- The experimental setup is insufficient. It would be more informative to present training plots instead of tables to illustrate performance. The inclusion of timesteps in Table 2 is unconventional and raises questions about clarity. If baseline methods without curriculum learning also achieve optimal results, this suggests that sparse rewards may not be a significant issue for the given tasks.
Yes
No ethics review needed.
I have asked my questions in the Weaknesses section. I have no further questions.
1. The sparse reward MARL studied in the paper is within the scope of ICLR, and relevant to the RL community.
2. The approach appears reasonable and effective.
This paper introduces a novel approach called Collaborative Multi-dimensional Course Learning (CCL) for multi-agent cooperation scenarios to tackle the sparse reward challenge. This approach combines automatic curriculum learning technology, and uses a co-evolutionary framework to develop. The authors claim that CCL outperforms existing baseline methods across multiple simulation environments, such as MPE and HnS.
1.In general, the novelty and the technical contribution of this work are quite limited. The proposed approach combines various existing approaches, making it challenging to discern its novelty. There is a lack of clarity regarding the connection and differentiation from existing methods. Current techniques such as automatic curriculum learning and evolution algorithm are commonly employed in recent sparse-reward papers. I think the authors should summarize the unique aspects of their approach compared to these existing methods, especially the advantages of combining two technologies.

2.Currently, the experiment section only describes the results without any insights or analysis, which makes the experiment section less helpful. The key results only use Table type to summarize, so why not use more intuitive Figures to display performance? The figures of ablation result only have lines without shaded area, is this right?

3.The writing quality is subpar. The layout of images and tables in the text is chaotic, making it difficult to match the content. There is no corresponding introduction in the main text regarding the detailed content of Fig.1 and Fig.2. In addition, the sub-section titles on L233 and L243 are the same.
@inproceedings{
anonymous2024enhancing,
title={Enhancing Cooperative Problem-Solving in Sparse-Reward Systems via Co-evolutionary Curriculum Learning},
author={Anonymous},
booktitle={Submitted to The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations},
year={2024},
url={https://openreview.net/forum?id=J9pNS44qcT},
note={under review}
}
Sparse reward environments consistently challenge reinforcement learning, as agents often need to finish tasks before receiving any feedback, leading to limited incentive signals. This issue becomes even more pronounced in multi-agent systems (MAS), where a single reward must be distributed among multiple agents over time, frequently resulting in suboptimal or inconsistent learning outcomes. To tackle this challenge, we introduce a novel approach called Collaborative Multi-dimensional Course Learning (CCL) for multi-agent cooperation scenarios. CCL features three key innovations: (1) It establishes an adaptive curriculum framework tailored for MAS, refining intermediate tasks to individual agents to ensure balanced strategy development. (2) A novel variant evolution algorithm creates more detailed intermediate tasks. (3) Co-evolution between agents and their environment is modeled to enhance training stability under sparse reward conditions. In evaluations across five tasks within multi-particle environments (MPE) and Hide and Seek (Hns), CCL demonstrated superior performance, surpassing existing benchmarks and excelling in sparse reward settings.
I certify that there is no URL (e.g., github page) that could be used to find authors’ identity.
I acknowledge that I and all co-authors of this work have read and commit to adhering to the ICLR Code of Ethics.
Reinforcement Learning Task Learning
I certify that there is no acknowledgement section in this submission for double blind review.
/pdf/631e9be2d9ac2c0ac0579e00e2e41d68fc1da742.pdf
reinforcement learning
I understand the reciprocal reviewing requirement as described on https://iclr.cc/Conferences/2025/CallForPapers. If none of the authors are registered as a reviewer, it may result in a desk rejection at the discretion of the program chairs. To request an exception, please complete this form at https://forms.gle/Huojr6VjkFxiQsUp6.
I certify that this submission complies with the submission instructions as described on https://iclr.cc/Conferences/2025/AuthorGuide.
Enhancing Cooperative Problem-Solving in Sparse-Reward Systems via Co-evolutionary Curriculum Learning
ICLR 2025 Conference Submission
ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission