Coordination Matters: Process-Aware Evaluation of Cooperative Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning

Abstract

Cooperative multi-agent reinforcement learning (MARL) benchmarks commonly emphasize aggregate outcomes such as return, success rate, or completion time. While essential, these metrics can obscure how agents coordinate and fail to distinguish policies that achieve similar outcomes through different interaction processes. We propose a process-aware evaluation framework that complements aggregate performance with diagnostics of interference, coordinated task completion, participation, and coordination efficiency. We evaluate the framework in STAT, a controlled spatial task-allocation testbed, and examine its broader applicability in two established cooperative MARL benchmarks. Across diverse value-based and actor-critic methods, we find policies with nearly identical return can exhibit substantial differences in coordination behavior. Controlled scaling in STAT reveals distinct process signatures for spatial, task, and agent scaling, while a reward-shaping ablation shows that explicitly penalizing assignment conflicts can alter coordination behavior with little change in task return. Results in the established benchmarks further show that the framework remains informative under different coordination mechanisms. These findings support process-aware evaluation as a complement to outcome-based benchmarking. The framework provides a common structure for selecting and interpreting environment-specific diagnostics that characterize not only what cooperative policies achieve, but how they coordinate to achieve it.