Centralized Training for Decentralized Execution, where agents are trained offline in a centralized fashion and execute online in a decentralized manner, has become a popular approach in Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning (MARL). In particular, it has become popular to develop actor-critic methods that train decentralized actors with a centralized critic where the centralized critic is allowed access global information of the entire system, including the true system state. Such centralized critics are possible given offline information and are not used for online execution. While these methods perform well in a number of domains and have become a de facto standard in MARL, using a centralized critic in this context has yet to be sufficiently analyzed theoretically or empirically. In this paper, we therefore formally analyze centralized and decentralized critic approaches, and analyze the effect of using state-based critics in partially observable environments. We derive theories contrary to the common intuition: critic centralization is not strictly beneficial, and using state values can be harmful. We further prove that, in particular, state-based critics can introduce unexpected bias and variance compared to history-based critics. Finally, we demonstrate how the theory applies in practice by comparing different forms of critics on a wide range of common multi-agent benchmarks. The experiments show practical issues such as the difficulty of representation learning with partial observability, which highlights why the theoretical problems are often overlooked in the literature.

Centralized Training for Decentralized Execution, where agents are trained offline in a centralized fashion and execute online in a decentralized manner, has become a popular approach in Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning (MARL). In particular, it has become popular to develop actor-critic methods that train decentralized actors with a centralized critic where the centralized critic is allowed access global information of the entire system, including the true system state. Such centralized critics are possible given offline information and are not used for online execution. While these methods perform well in a number of domains and have become a de facto standard in MARL, using a centralized critic in this context has yet to be sufficiently analyzed theoretically or empirically. In this paper, we therefore formally analyze centralized and decentralized critic approaches, and analyze the effect of using state-based critics in partially observable environments. We derive theories contrary to the common intuition: critic centralization is not strictly beneficial, and using state values can be harmful. We further prove that, in particular, state-based critics can introduce unexpected bias and variance compared to history-based critics. Finally, we demonstrate how the theory applies in practice by comparing different forms of critics on a wide range of common multi-agent benchmarks. The experiments show practical issues such as the difficulty of representation learning with partial observability, which highlights why the theoretical problems are often overlooked in the literature.

Centralized Training for Decentralized Execution, where agents are trained offline using centralized information but execute in a decentralized manner online, has gained popularity in the multi-agent reinforcement learning community. In particular, actor-critic methods with a centralized critic and decentralized actors are a common instance of this idea. However, the implications of using a centralized critic in this context are not fully discussed and understood even though it is the standard choice of many algorithms. We therefore formally analyze centralized and decentralized critic approaches, providing a deeper understanding of the implications of critic choice. Because our theory makes unrealistic assumptions, we also empirically compare the centralized and decentralized critic methods over a wide set of environments to validate our theories and to provide practical advice. We show that there exist misconceptions regarding centralized critics in the current literature and show that the centralized critic design is not strictly beneficial, but rather both centralized and decentralized critics have different pros and cons that should be taken into account by algorithm designers.