Comparative Study of Multi-Agent Actor-Critic Algorithms in Parameterized Action Reinforcement Learning
Parameterized action reinforcement learning has shown strong performance in environments requiring both discrete action selection and continuous parameterization. Prior work established the effectiveness of single-agent actor-critic algorithms - Greedy Actor-Critic (GAC), Soft Actor-Critic (SAC), and Truncated Quantile Critics (TQC) - on benchmark parameterized action tasks, but their extension to multi-agent settings remains largely unexplored. This paper presents a comparative study of shared-
Record details
Published: 21 July 2026
Source: arXiv cs.AI
Category: Research
Topics: Agents & autonomy · Environment
Retrieved: 22 July 2026
Related evidence
These records share source-supplied organisations, an exact publisher byline, automatic topics or regions. The reason is shown on every link; related does not mean supporting, agreeing with or verifying this record.
From Distances to Trajectories: Real-Time Signed Distance Function Mapping and Distance-Accelerated Motion Planning for UAVs
arXiv cs.AI · 21 July 2026
CodeRescue: Budget-Calibrated Recovery Routing for Coding Agents
arXiv cs.AI · 21 July 2026
Progress Reward Modeling for Robotic Learning: A Comprehensive Survey
HuggingFace Daily Papers · 21 July 2026
AI Contagion in Social Networks
arXiv cs.CY · 21 July 2026
Coordinating from Memory: Graph-Structured Experience Reuse for Multi-Agent Adaptation in Dynamic Manufacturing
arXiv cs.AI · 22 July 2026
PRO-LONG: Programmatic Memory Enables Long-Horizon Reasoning
arXiv cs.AI · 22 July 2026
How to cite this record
ethics.ai (21 July 2026), “Comparative Study of Multi-Agent Actor-Critic Algorithms in Parameterized Action Reinforcement Learning,” evidence record 12602, https://ethics.ai/record/12602 (originally published by arXiv cs.AI).
Use and limitations
This page is a stable index and citation surface for a source record. ethics.ai did not author the underlying report and has not independently verified every claim. Automatic topics may be imperfect. For consequential use, quote and cite the original publisher.