Value Propagation for Decentralized Networked Deep Multi-agent Reinforcement Learning

  • 2019-09-28 07:56:33
  • Chao Qu, Shie Mannor, Huan Xu, Yuan Qi, Le Song, Junwu Xiong
  • 0

Abstract

We consider the networked multi-agent reinforcement learning (MARL) problemin a fully decentralized setting, where agents learn to coordinate to achievethe joint success. This problem is widely encountered in many areas includingtraffic control, distributed control, and smart grids. We assume that thereward function for each agent can be different and observed only locally bythe agent itself. Furthermore, each agent is located at a node of acommunication network and can exchanges information only with its neighbors.Using softmax temporal consistency and a decentralized optimization method, weobtain a principled and data-efficient iterative algorithm. In the first stepof each iteration, an agent computes its local policy and value gradients andthen updates only policy parameters. In the second step, the agent propagatesto its neighbors the messages based on its value function and then updates itsown value function. Hence we name the algorithm value propagation. We prove anon-asymptotic convergence rate 1/T with the nonlinear function approximation.To the best of our knowledge, it is the first MARL algorithm with convergenceguarantee in the control, off-policy and non-linear function approximationsetting. We empirically demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach inexperiments.

 

Quick Read (beta)

Value Propagation for Decentralized Networked Deep Multi-agent Reinforcement Learning

Chao Qu [email protected] Shie Mannor Technion Huan Xu Yuan Qi Le Song Junwu Xiong
Abstract

We consider the networked multi-agent reinforcement learning (MARL) problem in a fully decentralized setting, where agents learn to coordinate to achieve joint success. This problem is widely encountered in many areas including traffic control, distributed control, and smart grids. We assume each agent is located at a node of a communication network and can exchange information only with its neighbors. Using softmax temporal consistency, we derive a primal-dual decentralized optimization method and obtain a principled and data-efficient iterative algorithm named value propagation. We prove a non-asymptotic convergence rate of 𝒪(1/T) with nonlinear function approximation. To the best of our knowledge, it is the first MARL algorithm with a convergence guarantee in the control, off-policy, non-linear function approximation, fully decentralized setting.

 

Value Propagation for Decentralized Networked Deep Multi-agent Reinforcement Learning


 

\@float

noticebox[b]33rd Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS 2019), Vancouver, Canada.\[email protected]

1 Introduction

Multi-agent systems have applications in a wide range of areas such as robotics, traffic control, distributed control, telecommunications, and economics. For these areas, it is often difficult or simply impossible to predefine agents’ behaviour to achieve satisfactory results, and multi-agent reinforcement learning (MARL) naturally arises (Bu et al., 2008; Tan, 1993). For example, El-Tantawy et al. (2013) model a traffic signal control problem as a multi-player stochastic game and solve it with MARL. MARL generalizes reinforcement learning by considering a set of agents (decision makers) sharing a common environment. However, multi-agent reinforcement learning is a challenging problem since the agents interact with both the environment and each other. For instance, independent Q-learning—treating other agents as a part of the environment—often fails as the multi-agent setting breaks the theoretical convergence guarantee of Q-learning and makes the learning process unstable (Tan, 1993). Rashid et al. (2018); Foerster et al. (2018); Lowe et al. (2017) alleviate such a problem using a centralized network (i.e., being centralized for training, but decentralized during execution.). Its communication pattern is illustrated in the left panel of Figure 1.

Despite the great success of (partially) centralized MARL approaches, there are various scenarios, such as sensor networks (Rabbat and Nowak, 2004) and intelligent transportation systems (Adler and Blue, 2002) , where a central agent does not exist or may be too expensive to use. In addition, privacy and security are requirements of many real world problems in multi-agent system (also in many modern machine learning problems) (Abadi et al., 2016; Kurakin et al., 2016) . For instance, in Federated learning (McMahan et al., 2016), the learning task is solved by a lose federation of participating devices (agents) without the need to centrally store the data, which significantly reduces privacy and security risk by limiting the attack surface to only the device. In the agreement problem (DeGroot, 1974; Mo and Murray, 2017), a group of agents may want to reach consensus on a subject without leaking their individual goal or opinion to others. Obviously, centralized MARL violates privacy and security requirements. To this end, we and others have advocated the fully decentralized approaches, which are useful for many applications including unmanned vehicles (Fax and Murray, 2002), power grid (Callaway and Hiskens, 2011), and sensor networks (Cortes et al., 2004). For these approaches, we can use a network to model the interactions between agents (see the right panel of Figure 1). Particularly, We consider a fully cooperative setting where each agent makes its own decision based on its local reward and messages received from their neighbors. Thus each agent preserves the privacy of its own goal and policy. At the same time, through the message-passing all agents achieve consensus to maximize the averaged cumulative rewards over all agents; see Equation (3).

Figure 1: Centralized network vs Decentralized network. Each blue node in the figure corresponds to an agent. In centralized network (left), the red central node collects information for all agents, while in decentralized network (right), agents exchanges information with neighbors.

In this paper, we propose a new fully decentralized networked multi-agent deep reinforcement learning algorithm. Using softmax temporal consistency (Nachum et al., 2017; Dai et al., 2018) to connect value and policy updates, we derive a new two-step primal-dual decentralized reinforcement learning algorithm inspired by a primal decentralized optimization method (Hong et al., 2017) 11 1 The objective in Hong et al. (2017) is a primal optimization problem with constraint. Thus they introduce a Lagrange multiplier like method to solve it (so they call it primal-dual method ). Our objective function is a primal-dual optimization problem with constraint. . In the first step of each iteration, each agent computes its local policy, value gradients and dual gradients and then updates only policy parameters. In the second step, each agent propagates to its neighbors the messages based on its value function (and dual function) and then updates its own value function. Hence we name the algorithm value propagation. It preserves the privacy in the sense that no individual reward function is required for the network-wide collaboration. We approximate the local policy, value function and dual function of each agent by deep neural networks, which enables automatic feature generation and end-to-end learning.

Contributions: [1] We propose the value propagation algorithm and prove that it converges with the rate 𝒪(1/T) even with the non-linear deep neural network function approximation. To the best of our knowledge, it is the first deep MARL algorithm with non-asymptotic convergence guarantee. At the same time, value propagation can use off-policy updates, making it data efficient. When it reduces to the single agent case, it provides a proof of (Dai et al., 2018) in the realistic setting; see remarks of algorithm 3.3 in Section 3.3. [2] The objective function in our problem is a primal-dual decentralized optimization form (see (3.2)), while the objective function in (Hong et al., 2017) is a primal problem. When our method reduces to pure primal analysis, we extend (Hong et al., 2017) to the stochastic and biased gradient setting which may be of independent interest to the optimization community. In the practical implementation, we extend ADAM into the decentralized setting to accelerate training.

2 Preliminaries

MDP  Markov Decision Process (MDP) can be described by a 5-tuple (𝒮,𝒜,,𝒫,γ): 𝒮 is the finite state space, 𝒜 is the finite action space, 𝒫=(P(s|s,a))s,s𝒮,a𝒜 are the transition probabilities, R=(R(s,a))s,s𝒮,a𝒜 are the real-valued immediate rewards and γ(0,1) is the discount factor. A policy is used to select actions in the MDP. In general, the policy is stochastic and denoted by π, where π(st,at) is the conditional probability density at at associated with the policy. Define V*(s)=maxπ𝔼[t=0γtR(st,at)|s0=s] to be the optimal value function. It is known that V* is the unique fixed point of the Bellman optimality operator, V(s)=(𝒯V)(s):=maxaR(s,a)+γ𝔼s|s,a[V(s)]. The optimal policy π* is related to V* by the following equation: π*(s,a)=argmaxa{R(s,a)+γ𝔼s|s,aV*(s)}

Softmax Temporal Consistency  Nachum et al. (2017) establish a connection between value and policy based reinforcement learning based on a relationship between softmax temporal value consistency and policy optimality under entropy regularization. Particularly, the soft Bellman optimality is as follows,

Vλ(s)=maxπ(s,)(𝔼aπ(s,)(R(s,a)+γ𝔼s|s,aVλ(s))+λH(π,s)), (1)

where H(π,s)=-a𝒜π(s,a)logπ(s,a) and λ0 controls the degree of regularization. When λ=0, above equation reduces to the standard Bellman optimality condition. An important property of soft Bellman optimality is the called temporal consistency, which leads to the Path Consistency Learning.

Proposition 1.

(Nachum et al., 2017). Assume λ>0. Let Vλ* be the fixed point of (1) and πλ* be the corresponding policy that attains that maximum on the RHS of (1). Then, (Vλ*,πλ*) is the unique (V,π) pair that satisfies the following equation for all (s,a)S×A: V(s)=R(s,a)+γEs|s,aV(s)-λlogπ(s,a).

A straightforward way to apply temporal consistency is to optimize the following problem, minV,πEs,a(R(s,a)+γ𝔼s|s,aV(s)-λlogπ(s,a)-V(s))2. Dai et al. (2018) get around the double sampling problem of above formulation by introduce a primal-dual form

minV,πmaxρ𝔼s,a,s[(δ(s,a,s)-V(s))2]-η𝔼s,a,s[(δ(s,a,s)-ρ(s,a))2], (2)

where δ(s,a,s)=R(s,a)+γV(s)-λlogπ(s,a), 0η1 controls the trade-off between bias and variance.

In the following discussion, we use to denote the Euclidean norm over the vector, A stands for the transpose of A, and denotes the entry-wise product between two vectors.

3 Value Propagation

In this section, we present our multi-agent reinforcement learning algorithm, i.e., value propagation. To begin with, we extend the MDP model to the Networked Multi-agent MDP model following the definition in (Zhang et al., 2018). Let 𝒢=(𝒩,) be an undirected graph with |𝒩|=N agents (node). represents the set of edges. (i,j) means agent i and j can communicate with each other through this edge. A networked multi-agent MDP is characterized by a tuple (𝒮,{𝒜i}i𝒩,𝒫,{Ri}i𝒩,𝒢,γ): 𝒮 is the global state space shared by all agents (It could be partially observed, i.e., each agent observes its own state Si, see our experiment). 𝒜i is the action space of agent i, 𝒜=i=1N𝒜i is the joint action space, 𝒫 is the transition probability, i denotes the local reward function of agent i. We assume rewards are observed only locally to preserve the privacy of the each agent’s goal. At each time step, agents observe st and make the decision at=(a1t,a2t,,aNt). Then each agent just receives its own reward Ri(st,at), and the environment switches to the new state st+1 according to the transition probability. Furthermore, since each agent make the decisions independently, it is reasonable to assume that the policy π(s,a) can be factorized, i.e., π(s,a)=i=1Nπi(s,ai) (Zhang et al., 2018). We call our method fully-decentralized method, since reward is received locally, the action is executed locally by agent, critic (value function) are trained locally.

3.1 Multi-Agent Softmax Temporal Consistency

The goal of the agents is to learn a policy that maximizes the long-term reward averaged over the agent, i.e.,

𝔼t=01Ni=1NγtRi(st,at). (3)

In the following, we adapt the temporal consistency into the multi-agent version. Let Vλ(s)=𝔼(1Ni=1NRi(s,a)+γ𝔼s|s,aVλ(s)+λH(π,s)), Vλ* be the optimal value function and πλ*(s,a)=i=1Nπλi*(s,ai) be the corresponding policy. Apply the soft temporal consistency, we obtain that for all (s,a)𝒮×𝒜, (Vλ*,πλ*) is the unique (V,π) pair that satisfies

V(s)=1Ni=1NRi(s,a)+γ𝔼s|s,aV(s)-λi=1Nlogπi(s,ai). (4)

A optimization problem inspired by (4) would be

min{πi}i=1N,V𝔼(V(s)-1Ni=1NRi(s,a)-γ𝔼s|s,aV(s)+λi=1Nlogπi(s,ai))2. (5)

There are two potential issues of above formulation: First, due to the inner conditional expectation, it would require two independent samples to obtain the unbiased estimation of gradient of V (Dann et al., 2014). Second, V(s) is a global variable over the network, thus can not be updated in a decentralized way.

For the first issue, we introduce the primal-dual form of (5) as that in (Dai et al., 2018). Using the fact that x2=maxν(2νx-ν2) and the interchangeability principle (Shapiro et al., 2009) we have,

minV,{πi}i=1Nmaxν2𝔼s,a,s[ν(s,a)(1Ni=1N(Ri(s,a)+γV(s)-V(s)-λNlogπi(s,ai))]-𝔼s,a,s[ν2(s,a)].

Change the variable ν(s,a)=ρ(s,a)-V(s), the objective function becomes

minV,{πi}i=1Nmaxρ𝔼s,a,s[(1Ni=1N(δi(s,a,s)-V(s)))2]-𝔼s,a,s[(1Ni=1N(δi(s,a,s)-ρ(s,a)))2], (6)

where δi=Ri(s,a)+γV(s)-λNlogπi(s,ai).

3.2 Decentralized Formulation

So far the problem is still in a centralized form, and we now turn to reformulating it in a decentralized way. We assume that policy, value function, dual variable ρ are all in the parametric function class. Particularly, each agent’s policy is πi(s,ai):=πθπi(s,ai) and πθ(s,a)=i=1Nπθπi(s,ai). The value function Vθv(s) is characterized by the parameter θv, while θρ represents the parameter of ρ(s,a). Similar to (Dai et al., 2018), we optimize a slightly different version from (6).

minθv,{θπi}i=1Nmaxθρ𝔼s,a,s[(1Ni=1N(δi(s,a,s)-V(s)))2]-η𝔼s,a,s[(1Ni=1N(δi(s,a,s)-ρ(s,a)))2], (7)

where 0η1 controls the bias and variance trade-off. When η=0, it reduces to the pure primal form.

We now consider the second issue that V(s) is a global variable. To address this problem, we introduce the local copy of the value function, i.e., Vi(s) for each agent i. In the algorithm, we have a consensus update step, such that these local copies are the same, i.e., V1(s)=V2(s)==VN(s)=V(s), or equivalently θv1=θv2==θvN, where θvi are parameter of Vi respectively. Notice now in (7), there is a global dual variable ρ in the primal-dual form. Therefore, we also introduce the local copy of the dual variable, i.e., ρi(s,a) to formulate it into the decentralized optimization problem. Now the final objective function we need to optimize is

min{θvi,θπi}i=1N max{θρi}i=1NL(θV,θπ,θρ)=𝔼s,a,s[(1Ni=1N(δi(s,a,s)-Vi(s)))2]
                                           -η𝔼s,a,s[(1Ni=1N(δi(s,a,s)-ρi(s,a)))2],
s.t.θv1=,,=θvN,θρ1=,,=θρN, (8)

where δi=Ri(s,a)+γVi(s)-λNlogπi(s,ai). We are now ready to present the value propagation algorithm. In the following, for notational simplicity, we assume the parameter of each agent is a scalar, i.e., θρi,θπi,θviR. We pack the parameter together and slightly abuse the notation by writing θρ=[θρ1,,θρN], θπ=[θπ1,,θπN], θV=[θv1,,θvN]. Similarly, we also pack the stochastic gradient g(θρ)=[g(θρ1),,g(θρn)], g(θV)=[g(θv1),,g(θvn)].

3.3 Value propagation algorithm

Solving (3.2) even without constraints is not an easy problem when both primal and dual parts are approximated by the deep neural networks. An ideal way is to optimize the inner dual problem and find the solution θρ*=argmaxθρL(θV,θπ,θρ), such that θρ1==θρN. Then we can do the (decentralized) stochastic gradient decent to solve the primal problem.

min{θvi,θπi}i=1NL(θV,θπ,θρ*)s.t.θv1==θvN. (9)

However in practice, one tricky issue is that we can not get the exact solution θρ* of the dual problem. Thus, we do the (decentralized) stochastic gradient for Tdual steps in the dual problem and get an approximated solution θ~ρ in the Algorithm 3.3. In our analysis, we take the error ε generated from this inexact solution into the consideration and analyze its effect on the convergence. Particularly, since θVL(θV,θπ,θ~ρ)θVL(θV,θπ,θρ*), the primal gradient is biased and the results in (Dai et al., 2018; Hong et al., 2017) do not fit this problem.

In the dual update we do a consensus update θρt+1=12D-1L+θρt-αρ2D-1Aμρt+αρ2D-1g(θρt) using the stochastic gradient of each agent, where μρ is some auxiliary variable to incorporate the communication, D is the degree matrix, A is the node-edge incidence matrix, L+ is sign-less graph Laplacian. We defer the detail definition and the derivation of this algorithm to Appendix A.1 and Appendix A.5 due to space limitation. After updating the dual parameters, we optimize the primal parameters θv, θπ. Similarly, we use a mini-batch data from the replay buffer and then do a consensus update on θv. The same remarks on ρ also hold for the primal parameter θv. Notice here we do not need the consensus update on θπ, since each agent’s policy πi(s,ai) is different than each other. This update rule is adapted from a primal decentralized optimization algorithm (Hong et al., 2017). Notice even in the pure primal case, Hong et al. (2017) only consider the batch gradient case while our algorithm and analysis include the stochastic and biased gradient case. In practicals implementation, we consider the decentralized momentum method and multi-step temporal consistency to accelerate the training; see details in Appendix A.2 and Appendix A.3.

Remarks on Algorithm 3.3. (1) In the single agent case, Dai et al. (2018) assume the dual problem can be exactly solved and thus they analyze a simple pure primal problem. However such assumption is unrealistic especially when the dual variable is represented by the deep neural network. Our multi-agent analysis considers the inexact solution. This is much harder than that in (Dai et al., 2018), since now the primal gradient is biased. (2) The update of each agent just needs the information of the agent itself and its neighbors. See this from the definition of D, A, L+ in the appendix. (3) The topology of the Graph 𝒢 affects the convergence speed. In particular, the rate depends on σmin(AA) and σmin(D), which are related to spectral gap of the network.

{algorithm}

[h] Value Propagation \[email protected]@algorithmic \STATE Input: Environment ENV, learning rate απ, αv, αρ, discount factor γ, number of step Tdual to train dual parameter θρi, replay buffer capacity B, node-edge incidence matrix ARE×N, degree matrix D, signless graph Laplacian L+. \STATEInitialization of θvi,θπi,θρi, μρ0=0, μV0=0. \FORt=1,,T \STATE sample trajectory s0:τπ(s,a)=i=1Nπi(s,ai) and add it into the replay buffer.
1. Update the dual parameter θρi

Do following dual update Tdual times:

\STATE

Random sample a mini-batch of transition (st,{ati}i=1N,st+1,{rti}i=1N) from the replay buffer.

\FOR

agent i=1 to n \STATECalculate the stochastic gradient g(θρit) of -η(δi(st,at,st+1)-ρi(st,at))2 w.r.t. θρit. \ENDFOR
// Do consensus update on θρ:=[θρ1,,θρN]
θρt+1=12D-1L+θρt-αρ2D-1Aμρt+αρ2D-1g(θρt),μρt+1=μρt+1αρAθρt+1
2. Update primal parameters θvi,θπi \STATERandom sample a mini-batch of transition (st,{ati}i=1N,st+1,{rti}i=1N) from the replay buffer. \FOR agent i=1 to n \STATECalculate the stochastic gradient g(θvit),g(θπit) of (δi(st,at,st+1)-Vi(st))2-η(δi(st,at,st+1)-ρi(st,at))2, w.r.t. θvit, θπit \ENDFOR
// Do gradient decent on θπi: θπit+1=θπit-απg(θπit) for each agent i.

// Do consensus update on θV:=[θv1,,θvN] :
θVt+1=12D-1L+θVt-αv2D-1AμVt-αv2D-1g(θVt),μVt+1=μVt+1αvAθVt+1. \ENDFOR

4 Theoretical Result

In this section, we give the convergence result on Algorithm 3.3. We first make two mild assumptions on the function approximators f(θ) of Vi(s), πi(s,ai), ρi(s,a).

Assumption 1.

i) The function approximator f(θ) is differentiable and has Lipschitz continuous gradient, i.e., f(θ1)-f(θ2)Lθ1-θ2,θ1,θ2RK. This is commonly assumed in the non-convex optimization. ii) The function approximator f(θ) is lower bounded. This can be easily satisfied when the parameter is bounded, i.e., θC for some positive constant C.

In the following, we give the theoretical analysis for Algorithm 3.3 in the same setting of (Antos et al., 2008; Dai et al., 2018) where samples are prefixed and from one single β-mixing off-policy sample path. We denote L^(θV,θπ)=maxθρL(θV,θπ,θρ),s.t.,θρ1=,,=θρN

Theorem 1.

Let the function approximators of Vi(s), πi(s,ai) and ρi(s,a) satisfy Assumption 1, snd denote the total training step be T. We solve the inner dual problem with a approximated solution θ~ρ=(θ~ρ1,,θ~ρN), such that θVL(θV,θπ,θ~ρ)-θVL(θV,θπ,θρ*)c1/T, and θπL(θV,θπ,θ~ρ)-θπL(θV,θπ,θρ*)c2/T. Assume the variance of the stochastic gradient g(θV), g(θπ) and g(θρ) (estimated by a single sample) are bounded by σ2, the size of the mini-batch is T, the step size απ,αv,αρ1L. Then value propagation in Algorithm 3.3 converges to the stationary solution of L^(θV,θπ) with rate O(1/T).

Remarks: (1) The convergence criteria and its dependence on the network structure are involved. We defer the definition of them to the proof section in the appendix (Equation (44)). (2) We require that the approximated dual solution θ~ρ are not far from θρ* such that the estimation of the primal gradient of θv and θπ are not far from the true one (the distance is less than 𝒪(1/T)). Once the inner dual problem is concave, we can get this approximated solution easily using vanilla decentralized stochastic gradient method after at most T steps. If the dual problem is non-convex, we still can show the dual problem converges to some stationary solution with rate 𝒪(1/T) by our proof. (3) In the theoretical analysis, the stochastic gradient estimated from the mini-batch (rather than the estimation from a single sample ) is common in non-convex analysis, see the work (Ghadimi and Lan, 2016). In practice, a mini-batch of samples is commonly used in training deep neural network.

5 Related work

Among related work on MARL, the setting of (Zhang et al., 2018) is close to ours, where the authors proposed a fully decentralized multi-agent Actor-Critic algorithm to maximize the expected time-average reward limT1T𝔼t=1T1ni=1nrit. They provide the asymptotic convergence analysis on the on-policy and linear function approximation setting. In our work, we consider the discounted reward setup, i.e., Equation (3). Our algorithm includes both on-policy and off-policy setting thus can exploit data more efficiently. Furthermore, we provide a convergence rate 𝒪(1T) in the non-linear function approximation setting which is much stronger than the result in (Zhang et al., 2018). Littman (1994) proposed the framework of Markov games which can be applied to collaborative and competitive setting (Lauer and Riedmiller, 2000; Hu and Wellman, 2003). These early works considered the tabular case thus can not apply to real problems with large state space. Recent works (Foerster et al., 2016, 2018; Rashid et al., 2018; Raileanu et al., 2018; Jiang et al., 2018; Lowe et al., 2017) have exploited powerful deep learning and obtained some promising empirical results. However most of them lacks theoretical guarantees while our work provides convergence analysis. We emphasize that most of the research on MARL is in the fashion of centralized training and decentralized execution. In the training, they do not have the constraint on the communication, while our work has a network decentralized structure.

6 Experimental result

The goal of our experiment is two-fold: To better understand the effect of each component in the proposed algorithm; and to evaluate efficiency of value propagation in the off-policy setting. To this end, we first do an ablation study on a simple random MDP problem, we then evaluate the performance on the cooperative navigation task (Lowe et al., 2017). The settings of the experiment are similar to those in (Zhang et al., 2018). Some implementation details are deferred to Appendix A.4 due to space constraints.

6.1 Ablation Study

Figure 2: Results on randomly sampled MDP. Left: Value function of different agents in value propagation. In the figure, value functions of three agents are similar, which means agents get consensus on value functions. Middle: Cumulative reward of value propagation (with different η) and centralized PCL with 10 agents. Right : Results with 20 agents.

In this experiment, we test effect of several components of our algorithm such as the consensus update, dual formulation in a random MDP problem. Particularly we answer following three questions: (1) Whether an agent can get consensus through message-passing in value propagation even when each agent just knows its local reward. (2) How much performance does the decentralized approach sacrifice comparing with centralized one? (3) What is the effect of the dual part in our formulation (0η1 and η=0 corresponds to the pure primal form)?

We compare value propagation with the centralized PCL. The centralized PCL means that there is a central node to collect rewards of all agent, thus it can optimize the objective function (5) using the single agent PCL algorithm (Nachum et al., 2017; Dai et al., 2018). Ideally, value propagation should converges to the same long term reward with the one achieved by the centralized PCL. In the experiment, we consider a multi-agent RL problem with N=10 and N=20 agents, where each agent has two actions. A discrete MDP is randomly generated with |𝒮|=32 states. The transition probabilities are distributed uniformly with a small additive constant to ensure ergodicity of the MDP, which is 𝒫(s|a,s)pssa+10-5,pssaU[0,1]. For each agent i and each state-action pair (s,a), the reward Ri(s,a) is uniformly sampled from [0,4].

Figure 3: Results on Cooperative Navigation task. Left: value functions of three random picked agents (totally 16 agents) in value propagation. They get consensus. Middle : cumulative reward of value propagation (eta=0.01 and eta=0.1), MA-AC and PCL without communication with agent number N=8. Right: Results with agent number N=16. Our algorithm outperforms MA-AC and PCL without communication. Comparing with the middle panel, the number of agent increases in the right panel. Therefore, the problem becomes harder (more collisions). We see agents achieve lower cumulative reward (averaged over agents) and need more time to find a good policy.

In the left panel of Figure 2, we verify that the value function vi(s) in value propagation reaches the consensus through message-passing in the end of the training. Particularly, we randomly choose three agent i, j, k and draw their value functions over 20 randomly picked states. It is easy to see that value functions vi(s), vj(s), vk(s) over these states are almost same. This is accomplished by the consensus update in value propagation. In the middle and right panel of Figure 2, we compare the result of value propagation with centralized PCL and evaluate the effect of the dual part of value propagation. Particularly, we pick η=0,0.01,0.1,1 in the experiment, where η=0 corresponds to the pure primal formulation. When η is too large (η=1), the algorithm would have large variance while η=0 the algorithm has some bias. Thus value propagation with η=0.1,0.01 has better result. We also see that value propagation (η=0.1,0.01) and centralized PCL converge to almost the same value, although there is a gap between centralized and decentralized algorithm. The centralized PCL converges faster than value propagation, since it does not need time to diffuse the reward information over the network.

6.2 Cooperative Navigation task

The aim of this section is to demonstrate that the value propagation outperforms decentralized multi-agent Actor-Critic (MA-AC)(Zhang et al., 2018), independent Q learning (Tan, 1993), the Multi-agent PCL without communication. Here PCL without communication means each agent maintains its own estimation of policy πi(s,ai) and value function Vi(s) but there is no communication Graph. Notice that this is different from the centralized PCL in Section 6.1, where centralized PCL has a central node to collect all reward information and thus do not need further communication. Note that the original MA-AC is designed for the averaged reward setting thus we adapt it into the discounted case to fit our setting. We test the value propagation in the environment of the Cooperative Navigation task (Lowe et al., 2017), where agents need to reach a set of L landmarks through physical movement. We modify this environment to fit our setting. A reward is given when the agent reaches its own landmarks. A penalty is received if agents collide with other agents. Since the position of landmarks are different, the reward function of each agent is different. Here we test the case the state is globally observed and partially observed. In particular, we assume the environment is in a rectangular region with size 2×2. There are N=8 or N=16 agents. Each agent has a single target landmark, i.e., L=N, which is randomly located in the region. Each agent has five actions which corresponds to going up, down, left, right with units 0.1 or staying at the position. The agent has high probability (0.95) to move in the direction following its action and go in other direction randomly otherwise. The maximum length of each epoch is set to be 500 steps. When the agent is close enough to the landmark, e.g., the distance is less than 0.1, we think it reaches the target and gets reward +5. When two agents are close to each other (with distance less than 0.1), we treat this case as a collision and a penalty -1 is received for each of the agents. The state includes the position of the agents. The communication graph is generated as that in Section 6.1 with connectivity ratio 4/N. In the partially observed case, the actor of each agent can only observe its own and neighbors’ states. We report the results in Figure 3.

In the left panel of Figure 3, we see the value function vi(s) reaches consensus in value propagation. In the middle and right panel of Figure 3, we compare value propagation with PCL without communication, independent Q learning and MA-AC. In PCL without communication, each agent maintains its own policy, value function and dual function, which is trained by the algorithm SBEED (Dai et al., 2018) with η=0.01. Since there is no communication between agents, intuitively agents may have more collisions in the learning process than those in value propagation. Similar augment holds for the independent Q learning. Indeed, In the middle and right panel, we see value propagation learns the policy much faster than PCL without communication. We also observe that value propagation outperforms MA-AC. One possible reason is that value propagation is an off-policy method thus we can apply experience replay which exploits data more efficiently than the on-policy method MA-AC. We also test the performance of value propagation (result labeled as partial value propagation in Figure 3) when the state information of actor is partially observed. Since the agent has limited information, its performance is worse than the fully observed case. But it is better than the PCL without communication (fully observed state).

References

  • Abadi et al. (2016) Martin Abadi, Andy Chu, Ian Goodfellow, H Brendan McMahan, Ilya Mironov, Kunal Talwar, and Li Zhang. Deep learning with differential privacy. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, pages 308–318. ACM, 2016.
  • Adler and Blue (2002) Jeffrey L Adler and Victor J Blue. A cooperative multi-agent transportation management and route guidance system. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 10(5-6):433–454, 2002.
  • Antos et al. (2008) András Antos, Csaba Szepesvári, and Rémi Munos. Learning near-optimal policies with bellman-residual minimization based fitted policy iteration and a single sample path. Machine Learning, 71(1):89–129, 2008.
  • Boyd et al. (2006) Stephen Boyd, Arpita Ghosh, Balaji Prabhakar, and Devavrat Shah. Randomized gossip algorithms. IEEE transactions on information theory, 52(6):2508–2530, 2006.
  • Bu et al. (2008) Lucian Bu, Robert Babu, Bart De Schutter, et al. A comprehensive survey of multiagent reinforcement learning. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C (Applications and Reviews), 38(2):156–172, 2008.
  • Callaway and Hiskens (2011) Duncan S Callaway and Ian A Hiskens. Achieving controllability of electric loads. Proceedings of the IEEE, 99(1):184–199, 2011.
  • Cattivelli et al. (2008) Federico S Cattivelli, Cassio G Lopes, and Ali H Sayed. Diffusion recursive least-squares for distributed estimation over adaptive networks. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, 56(5):1865–1877, 2008.
  • Cortes et al. (2004) Jorge Cortes, Sonia Martinez, Timur Karatas, and Francesco Bullo. Coverage control for mobile sensing networks. IEEE Transactions on robotics and Automation, 20(2):243–255, 2004.
  • Dai et al. (2018) Bo Dai, Albert Shaw, Lihong Li, Lin Xiao, Niao He, Zhen Liu, Jianshu Chen, and Le Song. Sbeed: Convergent reinforcement learning with nonlinear function approximation. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 1133–1142, 2018.
  • Dann et al. (2014) Christoph Dann, Gerhard Neumann, and Jan Peters. Policy evaluation with temporal differences: A survey and comparison. The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 15(1):809–883, 2014.
  • DeGroot (1974) Morris H DeGroot. Reaching a consensus. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 69(345):118–121, 1974.
  • Duchi et al. (2011) John Duchi, Elad Hazan, and Yoram Singer. Adaptive subgradient methods for online learning and stochastic optimization. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12(Jul):2121–2159, 2011.
  • El-Tantawy et al. (2013) Samah El-Tantawy, Baher Abdulhai, and Hossam Abdelgawad. Multiagent reinforcement learning for integrated network of adaptive traffic signal controllers (marlin-atsc): methodology and large-scale application on downtown toronto. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 14(3):1140–1150, 2013.
  • Fax and Murray (2002) J Alexander Fax and Richard M Murray. Information flow and cooperative control of vehicle formations. In IFAC World Congress, volume 22, 2002.
  • Foerster et al. (2016) Jakob Foerster, Ioannis Alexandros Assael, Nando de Freitas, and Shimon Whiteson. Learning to communicate with deep multi-agent reinforcement learning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 2137–2145, 2016.
  • Foerster et al. (2018) Jakob N Foerster, Gregory Farquhar, Triantafyllos Afouras, Nantas Nardelli, and Shimon Whiteson. Counterfactual multi-agent policy gradients. In Thirty-Second AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2018.
  • Ghadimi and Lan (2016) Saeed Ghadimi and Guanghui Lan. Accelerated gradient methods for nonconvex nonlinear and stochastic programming. Mathematical Programming, 156(1-2):59–99, 2016.
  • Hong (2016) Mingyi Hong. Decomposing linearly constrained nonconvex problems by a proximal primal dual approach: Algorithms, convergence, and applications. arXiv preprint arXiv:1604.00543, 2016.
  • Hong et al. (2017) Mingyi Hong, Davood Hajinezhad, and Ming-Min Zhao. Prox-pda: The proximal primal-dual algorithm for fast distributed nonconvex optimization and learning over networks. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 1529–1538, 2017.
  • Hu and Wellman (2003) Junling Hu and Michael P Wellman. Nash q-learning for general-sum stochastic games. Journal of machine learning research, 4(Nov):1039–1069, 2003.
  • Jiang et al. (2018) Jiechuan Jiang, Chen Dun, and Zongqing Lu. Graph convolutional reinforcement learning for multi-agent cooperation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.09202, 2018.
  • Kingma and Ba (2014) Diederik P Kingma and Jimmy Ba. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980, 2014.
  • Kurakin et al. (2016) Alexey Kurakin, Ian Goodfellow, and Samy Bengio. Adversarial machine learning at scale. arXiv preprint arXiv:1611.01236, 2016.
  • Lauer and Riedmiller (2000) Martin Lauer and Martin Riedmiller. An algorithm for distributed reinforcement learning in cooperative multi-agent systems. In In Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Machine Learning. Citeseer, 2000.
  • Littman (1994) Michael L Littman. Markov games as a framework for multi-agent reinforcement learning. In Machine Learning Proceedings 1994, pages 157–163. Elsevier, 1994.
  • Lowe et al. (2017) Ryan Lowe, Yi Wu, Aviv Tamar, Jean Harb, OpenAI Pieter Abbeel, and Igor Mordatch. Multi-agent actor-critic for mixed cooperative-competitive environments. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 6379–6390, 2017.
  • McMahan et al. (2016) H Brendan McMahan, Eider Moore, Daniel Ramage, Seth Hampson, et al. Communication-efficient learning of deep networks from decentralized data. arXiv preprint arXiv:1602.05629, 2016.
  • Mo and Murray (2017) Yilin Mo and Richard M Murray. Privacy preserving average consensus. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 62(2):753–765, 2017.
  • Nachum et al. (2017) Ofir Nachum, Mohammad Norouzi, Kelvin Xu, and Dale Schuurmans. Bridging the gap between value and policy based reinforcement learning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 2775–2785, 2017.
  • Rabbat and Nowak (2004) Michael Rabbat and Robert Nowak. Distributed optimization in sensor networks. In Proceedings of the 3rd international symposium on Information processing in sensor networks, pages 20–27. ACM, 2004.
  • Raileanu et al. (2018) Roberta Raileanu, Emily Denton, Arthur Szlam, and Rob Fergus. Modeling others using oneself in multi-agent reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.09640, 2018.
  • Rashid et al. (2018) Tabish Rashid, Mikayel Samvelyan, Christian Schroeder de Witt, Gregory Farquhar, Jakob Foerster, and Shimon Whiteson. Qmix: Monotonic value function factorisation for deep multi-agent reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.11485, 2018.
  • Shapiro et al. (2009) Alexander Shapiro, Darinka Dentcheva, and Andrzej Ruszczyński. Lectures on stochastic programming: modeling and theory. SIAM, 2009.
  • Shi et al. (2015) Wei Shi, Qing Ling, Gang Wu, and Wotao Yin. Extra: An exact first-order algorithm for decentralized consensus optimization. SIAM Journal on Optimization, 25(2):944–966, 2015.
  • Tan (1993) Ming Tan. Multi-agent reinforcement learning: Independent vs. cooperative agents. In Proceedings of the tenth international conference on machine learning, pages 330–337, 1993.
  • (36) T Tieleman and G Hinton. Divide the gradient by a running average of its recent magnitude. coursera: Neural networks for machine learning. Technical report, Technical Report. Available online: https://zh. coursera. org/learn ….
  • Xiao et al. (2005) Lin Xiao, Stephen Boyd, and Sanjay Lall. A scheme for robust distributed sensor fusion based on average consensus. In Information Processing in Sensor Networks, 2005. IPSN 2005. Fourth International Symposium on, pages 63–70. IEEE, 2005.
  • Zhang et al. (2018) Kaiqing Zhang, Zhuoran Yang, Han Liu, Tong Zhang, and Tamer Başar. Fully decentralized multi-agent reinforcement learning with networked agents. International Conference on Machine Learning, 2018.

Appendix A Details on the Value Propagation

A.1 Topology of the Graph

Here, we explain the matrix in the Algorithm 3.3 which are closely related to the topology of the Graph, which is left from the main paper due to the limit of the space.

  • D=diag[d1,,dN] is the degree matrix, with di denoting the degree of node i.

  • A is the node-edge incidence matrix: if e and it connects vertex i and j with i>j, then Aev=1 if v=i, Aev=-1 if v=j and Aev=0 otherwise.

  • The signless incidence matrix B:=|A|, where the absolute value is taken for each component of A.

  • The signless graph Laplacian L+=BTB. By definition L+(i,j)=0 if (i,j). Notice the non-zeros element in A, L+, the update just depends on each agent itself and its neighbor.

A.2 Practical Acceleration

The algorithm 3.3 trains the agent with vanilla gradient decent method with a extra consensus update. In practice, the adaptive momentum gradient methods including Adagrad Duchi et al. [2011], Rmsprop Tieleman and Hinton and Adam Kingma and Ba [2014] have much better performance in training the deep neural network. We adapt Adam in our setting, and propose algorithm A.2 which has better performance than algorithm 3.3 in practice.

{algorithm}

[htb!] Accelerated value propagation \[email protected]@algorithmic \STATE Input: Environment ENV, learning rate β1,β2[0,1), αt, discount factor γ, a mixing matrix W, number of step Tdual to train dual parameter θρi, replay buffer capacity B. \STATEInitialization of θvi,θπi,θρi, moment vectors mvi0=mρi0=0, wvi0=wρi0=0 . \FORt=1,,T \STATE sample trajectory s0:τπ(s,a)=i=1Nπi(s,ai) and add it into the replay buffer.
// Update the dual parameter θρi
Do following update Tdual times: \STATERandom sample a mini-batch of transition (st,{ati}i=1N,st+1,{rti}i=1N) from the replay buffer.

\FOR

agent i=1 to n \STATECalculate the stochastic gradient g(θρit) of -η(δi(st,at,st+1)-ρi(st,at))2 w.r.t. θρit.
// update momentum parameters: mρit=β1mρit-1+(1-β1)(-g(θρit))
wρit=β2wρit-1+(1-β2)g(θρit)g(θρit) \ENDFOR
// Do consensus update for each agent i
θρit+12=j=1N[W]ijθρjt, θρit=θρit+12-αtmρitwρit

// End the update of dual problem
// Update primal parameters θvi,θπi. \STATERandom sample a mini-batch of transition (st,{ati}i=1N,st+1,{rti}i=1N) from the replay buffer. \FOR agent i=1 to n \STATECalculate the stochastic gradient g(θvit),g(θπit) of (δi(st,at,st+1)-Vi(st))2-η(δi(st,at,st+1)-ρi(st,at))2, w.r.t. θvit, θπit
//update the momentum parameter:
mvit=β1mvit-1+(1-β1)g(θvit)
wvit=β2wvit-1+(1-β2)g(θvit)g(θvit)

// Using Adam to update θπi for each agent i.
// Do consensus update on θvi for each agent i:
θvit+12=j=1N[W]ijθvjt, θvit=θvit+12-αtmvitwvit \ENDFOR\ENDFOR

Mixing Matrix: In Algorithm A.2, there is a mixing matrix WRN×N in the consensus update. As its name suggests, it mixes information of the agent and its neighbors. This nonnegative matrix W need to satisfy the following condition.

  • W needs to be doubly stochastic, i.e., WT𝟏=𝟏 and W𝟏=𝟏.

  • W respects the communication graph 𝒢, i.e., W(i,j)=0 if (i,j).

  • The spectral norm of WT(I-𝟏𝟏T/N)W is strictly smaller than one.

Here is one particular choice of the mixing matrix W used in our work which satisfies above requirement called Metropolis weights Xiao et al. [2005].

W(i,j)=1+max[d(i),d(j)]-1,(i,j),W(i,i)=1-jNE(i)W(i,j),i𝒩, (10)

where NE(i)={j𝒩:(i,j)} is the set of neighbors of the agent i and d(i)=|𝒩(i)| is the degree of agent i. Such mixing matrix is widely used in decentralized and distributed optimization Boyd et al. [2006], Cattivelli et al. [2008]. The update rule of the momentum term in Algorithm A.2 is adapted from Adam. The consensus (communication) steps are θρit+12=j=1N[W]ijθρjt and θvit+12=j=1N[W]ijθvjt.

A.3 Multi-step Extension on value propagation

The temporal consistency can be extended to the multi-step case Nachum et al. [2017], where the following equation holds

V(s0)=t=0k-1γt𝔼st|s0,a0:t-1[R(st,at)-λlogπ(st,ati)]+γk𝔼sk|s0,a0:k-1V(sk).

Thus in the objective function (3.2), we can replace δi by δi(s0:k,a0:k-1)=t=0k-1γt(Ri(st,at)-λNlogπi(st,ati))+γkVi(sk) and change the estimation of stochastic gradient correspondingly in Algorithm 3.3 and Algorithm A.2 to get the multi-step version of vaue propagation . In practice, the performance of setting k>1 is better than k=1 which is also observed in single agent case Nachum et al. [2017], Dai et al. [2018]. We can tune k for each application to get the best performance.

A.4 Implementation details of the experiments

Ablation Study

The value function vi(s) and dual variable ρi(s,a) are approximated by two hidden-layer neural network with Relu as the activation function where each hidden-layer has 20 hidden units. The policy of each agent is approximated by a one hidden-layer neural network with Relu as the activation function where the number of the hidden units is 32. The output is the softmax function to approximate πi(s,ai). The mixing matrix in Algorithm A.2 is selected as the Metropolis Weights in (10). The graph 𝒢 is generated by randomly placing communication links among agents such that the connectivity ratio is 4/N. We set γ=0.9, λ=0.01, learning rate α=5e-4. The choice of β1, β2 are the default value in Adam.

Cooperative Navigation task

The value function vi(s) is approximated by a two-hidden-layer neural network with Relu as the activation function where inputs are the state information. Each hidden-layer has 40 hidden units. The dual function ρ(s,a) is also approximated by a two-hidden-layer neural network, where the only difference is that inputs are state-action pairs (s,a). The policy is approximated by a one-hidden-layer neural network with Relu as the activation function. The number of the hidden units is 32. The output is the softmax function to approximate πi(s,ai). In all experiments, we use the multi-step version of value propagation and choose k=4. We choose γ=0.95, λ=0.01. The learning rate of Adam is chosen as 5e-4 and β1,β2 are default value in Adam optimizer. The setting of PCL without communication is exactly same with value propagation except the absence of communication network.

A.5 Consensus update in Algorithm 3.3

We now give details to derive the Consensus Update in Algorithm 3.3 with η=1 to ease the exposition. When η[0,1), we just need to change variable and some notations, the result are almost same. Here we use the primal update as an example, the derivation of the dual update is the same.

In the main paper section 3, we have shown that when η=1, in the primal update, we basically solve following problem.

min{θvi,θπi}i=1N2𝔼s,a,s[ν*(s,a)(1Ni=1N(Ri(s,a)+γVi(s)-Vi(s)-λNlogπi(s,a))]-𝔼s,a,s[ν*2(s,a)],s.t.,θv1==θvn. (11)

here for simplicity we assume in the dual optimization, we have already find the optimal solution ν*(s,a). It can be any approximated solution of ν~(s,a) which does not affect the derivation of the update rule in primal optimization. In the later proof, we will show how this approximated solution affects the convergence rate.

When we optimize w.r.t. θvi, we basically we solve a non-convex problem with the following form

minxf(x)=i=1Nfi(xi),s.t.x1==xN (12)

Recall the definition of the node-edge incidence matrix A: if e and it connects vertex i and j with i>j, then Aev=1 if v=i, Aev=-1 if v=j and Aev=0 otherwise. Thus by define x=[x1,,xN] we have a equivalent form of (12)

minxf(x)=i=1Nfi(xi),s.t.,Ax=0 (13)

Notice the update of θπi is a special case of above formulation, since we do not have the constraint x1=,,=xN. Thus in the following, it suffice to analyze above formulation (13). We adapt the Prox-PDA in Hong et al. [2017] to solve above problem. To keep the notation consistent with Hong et al. [2017], we consider a more general problem

minxf(x)=i=1Nfi(xi),s.t.,Ax=b.

In the following we denote f(xt):=[(x1f(x1))T,,(xNf(xN))T]T where the superscript means transpose. We denote gi(xi) as an estimator of xif(xi) and g(x)=[g1(x1),,gN(xN)].

The update rule of Prox-PDA is

xt+1=argminxg(xt),x-xt+μt,Ax-b+β2Ax-b2+β2x-xtBTB2 (14)
μt+1=μt+β(Axt+1-b) (15)

where g(xt) is an estimator of f(xt). The signed graph Laplacian matrix L- is ATA. Now we choose B:=|A| as the signless incidence matrix. Using this choice of B, we have BTB=L+N×N which is the signless graph Laplacian whose (i,i)th diagonal entry is the degree of node i and its (i,j)th entry is 1 if e=(i,j), and 0 otherwise.

Thus

xt+1=argminxg(xt),x-xt+μt,Ax-b+β2xTL-x+β2(x-xt)L+(x-xt)=argminxg(xt),x+μt,Ax-b+β2xT(L-+L+)x-βxTL+xt=argminxg(xt),x+μt,Ax-b+βxTDx-βxTL+xt, (16)

where D=diag[d1,,dN] is the degree matrix, with di denoting the degree of node i.

After simple algebra, we obtain

xt+1=12D-1L+xt-12βD-1ATμt-12βD-1g(xt),

which is the primal update rule of the consensus step in the algorithm 3.3 (notice here the stepsize is 1/β)

Appendix B Convergence Proof of Value Propagation

B.1 Convergence on the primal update

In this section, we first give the convergence analysis of the value propagation (algorithm 3.3) on the primal update. To include the effected of the inexact solution of dual optimization problem, we denote g(xt)=f(xt)+ϵt, where ϵt=εt+ε~t is some error terms.

  • εt is a zero mean random variable coming from the randomness of the stochastic gradient g(xt).

  • ε~t comes from the approximated solution of ν~ in (11) or ρ~ in (3.2) such that θvL(θV,θπ,θ~ρ)-θvL(θV,θπ,θρ*)ε~t and θπL(θV,θπ,θ~ρ)-θπL(θV,θπ,θρ*)ε~t.

Before we begin the proof, we made some mild assumption on the function f(x).

Assumption 2.

1. The function f(x) is differentiable and has Lipschitz continuous gradient, i.e.,

f(x)-f(y)x-y,x,yK.

2. Further assume that ATA+BTBI. This assumption is always satisfied by our choice on A and B. We have ATA+BTBDmini{di}I

3. There exists a constant δ>0 such that f¯>-,s.t.,f(x)+δ2Ax-b2f¯,x. This assumption is satisfied if we require the parameter space is bounded.

Lemma 1.

Suppose the assumption 2 is satisfied, we have following inequality holds

μt+1-μt2β3L2βσminxt-xt-12+3βϵt-1-ϵt2+3βσminBTB((xt+1-xt)-(xt-xt-1))2 (17)
Proof.

Using the optimality condition of (14), we obtain

f(xt)+ϵt+ATμt+βAT(Axt+1-b)+βBTB(xt+1-xt)=0 (18)

applying equation (15) we have

ATμt+1=-f(xt)-βBTB(xt+1-xt). (19)

Note that from the fact that μ0=0, we have the variable lies in the column space of A.

μr=βt=1r(Axt-b).

Let σmin denote the smallest non-zero eigenvalue of ATA, we have

σmin1/2μt+1-μtA(μt+1-μt)-f(xt)-ϵt-βBTB(xt+1-xt)-(-f(xt-1)-ϵt-1-βBTB(xt-xt-1))=f(xt-1)-f(xt)+(ϵt-1-ϵt)-βBTB((xt+1-xt-(xt-xt-1))). (20)

Thus we have

μt+1-μt2β1βσmin1/2f(xt-1)-f(xt)+(ϵt-1-ϵt)-βBTB((xt+1-xt-(xt-xt-1)))23L2βσminxt-xt-12+3βϵt-1-ϵt2+3βσminBTB((xt+1-xt)-(xt-xt-1))2, (21)

where the second inequality holds from the fact that (a+b+c)23a2+3b2+3c2.

Lemma 2.

Define Lβ(xt,μt)=f(xt)+μt,Ax-b+β2Ax-b2+β2x-xtBTB. Suppose assumptions are satisfied, then the following is true for the algorithm

Lβ(xt+1,μt+1)-Lβ(xt,μt)-β2xt+1-xt2+3L2βσminxt-xt-12+3βϵt-1-ϵt2+3βσminBTB((xt+1-xt)-(xt-xt-1))2+ϵt,xt+1-xt (22)
Proof.

By the Assumptions ATA+BTBI, the objective function in (14) is strongly convex with parameter β.

Using the optimality condition of xt+1 and strong convexity, we have for any x,

Lβ(x,μt)+β2x-xtBTB2-(Lβ(xt+1,μt)+β2xt+1-xtBTB2)Lβ(xt+1,μt)+βBTB(xt+1-xt),x-xt+1+β2xt+1-x2 (23)

Now we start to provide a upper bound of Lβ(xt+1,μt+1)-Lβ(xt,μt) .

Lβ(xt+1,μt+1)-Lβ(xt,μt)=Lβ(xt+1,μt+1)-Lβ(xt+1,μt)+Lβ(xt+1,μt)-Lβ(xt,μt)Lβ(xt+1,μt+1)-Lβ(xt+1,μt)+Lβ(xt+1,μt)+β2xt+1-xtBTB2-Lβ(xt,μt)𝑎μt+1-μtβ+Lβ(xt+1,μt)+βBTB(xt+1-xt),xt+1-xt-β2xt+1-xt2𝑏-β2xt+1-xt2+μt+1-μt2β+ϵt,xt+1-xt𝑐-β2xt+1-xt2+3L2βσminxt-xt-12+3βϵt-1-ϵt2+3βσminBTB((xt+1-xt)-(xt-xt-1))2+ϵt,xt+1-xt, (24)

where the inequality (a) holds from the update rule in (15) and a simple algebra from the expression of Lβ(x,μ). Inequality (b) comes from the optimality condition of (14). Particularly, we have

g(xt)+ATμt+βAT(Ax-b)+βBTB(x-xt)=0

replace g(xt) by f(xt)+ϵt, we have the result. The inequality (c) holds using the Lemma 1.

Lemma 3.

Suppose Assumption 2 is satisfied, then the following condition holds.

β2(Axt+1-b2+xt+1-xtBTB2)L2xt+1-xt2+L2xt-xt-12+β2(xt-xt-1BTB2+Axt-b2)-β2((xt-xt-1)-(xt+1-xt)BTB2+A(xt+1-xt)2)-ϵt-ϵt-1,xt+1-xt (25)
Proof.

Using the optimality condition of xt+1 and xt in the update rule in (14), we obtain

g(xt)+ATμt+βAT(Axt+1-b)+βBTB(xt+1-xt),xt+1-x0,x (26)

and

g(xt-1)+ATμt-1+βAT(Axt-b)+βBTB(xt-xt-1),xt-x0,x (27)

Replacing g(xt) by f(xt)+ϵt and g(xt-1) by f(xt-1)+ϵt-1, and using the update rule (15)

f(xt)+ϵt+ATμt+1+βBTB(xt+1-xt),xt+1-x0,x (28)
f(xt-1)+ϵt-1+ATμt+βBTB(xt-xt-1),xt-x0,x (29)

Now choose x=xt in the first inequality and x=xt+1 in the second one, adding two inequalities together, we obtain

f(xt)-f(xt-1)+ϵt-ϵt-1+AT(μt+1-μt)+βBTB((xt+1-xt)-(xt-xt-1)),xt+1-xt0 (30)

Rearranging above terms, we have

AT(μt+1-μt),xt+1-xt-f(xt)-f(xt-1)+ϵt-ϵt-1+βBTB((xt+1-xt)-(xt-xt-1)),xt+1-xt (31)

We first re-express the lhs of above inequality.

AT(μt+1-μt),xt+1-xt=βAT(Axt+1-b),xt+1-xt=β(Axt+1-b),Axt+1-b-(Axt-b)=βAxt+1-b2-βAxt+1-b,Axt-b=β2(Axt+1-b2-Axt-b2+A(xt+1-xt)2) (32)

Next, we bound the rhs of (31).

-f(xt)-f(xt-1)+ϵt-ϵt-1+βBTB((xt+1-xt)-(xt-xt-1)),xt+1-xt=-f(xt)-f(xt-1)+ϵt-ϵt-1,xt+1-xt-βBTB((xt+1-xt)-(xt-xt-1)),xt+1-xt𝑎L2xt+1-xt2+12Lf(xt)-f(xt-1)2-ϵt-ϵt-1,xt+1-xt-βBTB((xt+1-xt)-(xt-xt-1)),xt+1-xt𝑏L2xt+1-xt2+L2xt-xt-12-ϵt-ϵt-1,xt+1-xt-βBTB((xt+1-xt)-(xt-xt-1)),xt+1-xt=L2xt+1-xt2+L2xt-xt-12-ϵt-ϵt-1,xt+1-xt+β2(xt-xt-1BTB2-xt+1-xtBTB2-(xt-xt-1)-(xt+1-xt)BTB2), (33)

where the inequality (a) uses Cauchy-Schwartz inequality, (b) holds from the smoothness assumption on f.

Combine all pieces together, we obtain

β2(Axt+1-b2+xt+1-xtBTB2)L2xt+1-xt2+L2xt-xt-12+β2(xt-xt-1BTB2+Axt-b2)-β2((xt-xt-1)-(xt+1-xt)BTB2+A(xt+1-xt)2)-ϵt-ϵt-1,xt+1-xt (34)

Same with Hong et al. [2017], we define the potential function

Pc,β(xt+1,xt,μt+1)=Lβ(xt+1,μt+1)+cβ2(Axt+1-b2+xt+1-xtBTB2) (35)
Lemma 4.

If Assumption 2 holds, we have following

Pc,β(xt+1,xt,μt+1)Pc,β(xt,xt-1,μt)-(β2-cL2-2c+12)xt+1-xt2+(3L2βσmin+cL2)xt-1-xt2-(cβ2-3βBTBσmin)(xt+1-xt)-(xt-xt-1)BTB2+(c4+β3)ϵt-1-ϵt2+12ϵt2 (36)
Proof.
Pc,β(xt+1,xt,μt+1)Lβ(xt,μt)+cβ2(xt-xt-1BTB+Axt-b2)-(β2-cL2)xt+1-xt2+(3L2βσmin+cL2)xt-1-xt2-(cβ2-3βBTBσmin)(xt+1-xt)-(xt-xt-1)BTB2+3βϵt-ϵt-12+ϵt,xt+1-xt-cϵt-ϵt-1,xt+1-xtPc,β(xt,xt-1,μt)-(β2-cL2)xt+1-xt2+(3L2βσmin+cL2)xt-1-xt2-(cβ2-3βBTBσmin)(xt+1-xt)-(xt-xt-1)BTB2+c4ϵt-1-ϵt2+cxt+1-xt2+12ϵt2+12xt+1-xt2+β3ϵt-ϵt-12=Pcβ(xt,xt-1,μt)-(β2-cL2-2c+12)xt+1-xt2+(3L2βσmin+cL2)xt-1-xt2-(cβ2-3βBTBσmin)(xt+1-xt)-(xt-xt-1)BTB2+(c4+β3)ϵt-1-ϵt2+12ϵt2 (37)

where the second inequality holds from the Cauchy-Schwartz inequality.

We require that

cβ2-3βBTBσmin0,

which is satisfied when

c6BTBσmin (38)

We further require

(β2-cL2-2c+12)(3L2βσmin+cL2),

which will be used later in the telescoping.

Thus we require

β2cL+2c+1+6L2βσmin. (39)

and choose βCL+2c+12+12(2cL+2c+1)2+24L2σmin

Now we do summation over both side of (36) and have

t=1T[(β2-cL2-2c+12)xt+1-xt2-(3L2βσmin+cL2)xt-1-xt2]+t=1T(cβ2-3βBTBσmin)(xt+1-xt)-(xt-xt-1)BTB2Pcβ(x1,x0,μ0)-Pcβ(xT+1,xT,μT)+t=1T[(c4+β3)ϵt-1-ϵt2+12ϵt2] (40)

rearrange terms of above inequality.

t=1T-1(β2-cl2-2c+12-3L2βσmin-cl2)xt+1-xt2+(β2-cl2-2c+12)xT+1-xT2Pcβ(x1,x0,μ0)-Pcβ(xT+1,xT,μT)+(3L2βσmin+cl2)x1-x02+t=1T[(c4+β3)ϵt-1-ϵt2+12ϵt2] (41)

Next we show Pcβ is lower bounded

The following lemma is from Lemma 3.5 in Hong [2016], we present here for completeness.

Lemma 5.

Suppose Assumption 2 are satisfied, and (c,β) are chosen according to (39) and (38). Then the following state holds true

P¯s.t.,Pcβ(xt+1,xt,μt+1)P¯>-

Proof.
Lβ(xt+1,μt+1)=f(xt+1)+μt+1,Axt+1-b+β2Axt+1-b2=f(xt+1)+1βμt+1,μt+1-μt+β2Axt+1-b2=f(xt+1)+12β(μt+12-μt2+μt+1-μt2)+β2Axt+1-b2. (42)

Sum over both side, we obtain

t=1TLβ(xt+1,μt+1)=t=1T(f(xt+1)+β2Axt+1-b2+12βμt+1-μt2)+12β(μT+12-μ12) (43)

By assumption 2, above sum is lower bounded, which implies that the sum of the potential function is also lower bounded (Recall Pc,β(xt+1,xt,μt+1)=Lβ(xt+1,μt+1)+cβ2(Axt+1-b2+xt+1-xtBTB2) ). Thus we have

Pcβ(xt+1,xt,μt+1)>-,t>0

In the next step, we are ready to provide the convergence rate. Following Hong [2016], we define the convergence criteria

Q(xt+1,μt+1)=Lβ(xt+1,μt)2+Axt+1-b2 (44)

It is easy to see, when Q(xt+1,μt)=0, f(x)+ATμ=0 and Ax=b, which are KKT condition of the problem.

Lβ(xt,μt-1)2=f(xt)-f(xt-1)+ϵt-ϵt-1+AT(μt+1-μt)+βBTB(xt+1-xt)24L2xt-xt-12+4μt+1-μt2ATA+4β2BTB(xt+1-xt)2+4ϵt-ϵt-12 (45)

Using the proof in Lemma 1, we know there exist two positive constants c1 c2 c3 c4

Q(xt,μt-1)c1xt-xt+12+c2xt-xt-12+c3BTB((xt+1-xt)-(xt-xt-1))2+c4ϵt-ϵt-12.

Using Lemma 4, we know there must exist a constant κ such that

t=1T-1Q(xt,μt-1)κ(Pcβ(x1,x0,μ0)-Pcβ(xT+1,xT,μT)+t=1T[(c4+β3)ϵt-1-ϵt2+12ϵt2])+c4t=1T-1ϵt-ϵt-12κ(Pcβ(x1,x0,μ0)-P¯+t=1T[(c4+β3)ϵt-1-ϵt2+12ϵt2])+c4t=1T-1ϵt-ϵt-12 (46)

Divide both side by T and take expectation

1T𝔼t=1TQ(xt,μt-1)1Tκ(Pcβ(x1,x0,μ0)-P¯)+κT[t=1T(c4+β3)𝔼ϵt-1-ϵt2+12ϵt2]+c4Tt=1T-1𝔼ϵt-ϵt-12 (47)

Now we bound the R.H.S. of above equation.

Recall we choose the mini-batch size T, ϵt=εt+ε~t and εtc1/T

ϵt-1-ϵt22𝔼(ϵt-12+ϵt2)4𝔼(εt2+ε~t2+εt-12+ε~t-12)8c1T+8σ2T (48)

Similarly we can bound ϵt2. Combine all pieces together, we obtain

1T𝔼t=1TQ(xt,μt-1)1Tκ(Pcβ(x1,x0,μ0)-P¯)+1T(κc5+c6σ2),

where c5,c6 are some universal positive constants.

Notice mint𝔼Q(xt,μt-1)1T𝔼t=1TQ(xt,μt-1), we have mint𝔼Q(xt,μt-1)(C+σ2)/T where C is a universal positive constant.

B.2 Convergence on the dual update

If the dual objective function is non-convex, we just follow the exact analysis in our proof on the primal problem. Notice the analysis on the dual update is easier than primal one, since we do not have the error term ϵ~t. Therefore, we have the algorithm converges to stationary solution with rate 𝒪(1/T)in criteria Q.

If the dual objective function is linear or convex, the update rule reduce to Extra [Hong, 2016, Shi et al., 2015] the convergence result of stochastic setting can be adapted from the proof in [Shi et al., 2015]. Since it is not the main contribution of this paper, we omit the proof here.