Dynamic one-time delivery of critical data by small and sparse UAV swarms: a model problem for MARL scaling studies

Reading time: 5 minute
...

📝 Original Info

  • Title: Dynamic one-time delivery of critical data by small and sparse UAV swarms: a model problem for MARL scaling studies
  • ArXiv ID: 2512.09682
  • Date: 2025-12-10
  • Authors: Mika Persson, Jonas Lidman, Jacob Ljungberg, Samuel Sandelius, Adam Andersson

📝 Abstract

This work presents a conceptual study on the application of Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning (MARL) for decentralized control of unmanned aerial vehicles to relay a critical data package to a known position. For this purpose, a family of deterministic games is introduced, designed for scaling studies for MARL. A robust baseline policy is proposed, which is based on restricting agent motion envelopes and applying Dijkstra's algorithm. Experimental results show that two off-the-shelf MARL algorithms perform competitively with the baseline for a small number of agents, but scalability issues arise as the number of agents increase.

💡 Deep Analysis

Figure 1

📄 Full Content

Dynamic one-time delivery of critical data by small and sparse UAV swarms: a model problem for MARL scaling studies ‹ Mika Persson ˚,˚˚˚ Jonas Lidman ˚˚ Jacob Ljungberg ˚ Samuel Sandelius ˚ Adam Andersson ˚,˚˚˚ ˚ Saab AB, 112 76, Gothenburg, Sweden (mikape@chalmers.se) ˚˚ Swedish Defence Research Agency (FOI), 164 90, Stockholm, Sweden (jonas.lidman@foi.se) ˚˚˚ Chalmers University of Technology and the University of Gothenburg, Department of Mathematical Sciences, 412 58, Gothenburg, Sweden (mikape@chalmers.se) Abstract: This work presents a conceptual study on the application of Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning (MARL) for decentralized control of unmanned aerial vehicles to relay a critical data package to a known position. For this purpose, a family of deterministic games is introduced, designed for scaling studies for MARL. A robust baseline policy is proposed, which is based on restricting agent motion envelopes and applying Dijkstra’s algorithm. Experimental results show that two off-the-shelf MARL algorithms perform competitively with the baseline for a small number of agents, but scalability issues arise as the number of agents increase. Keywords: Multi-agent systems, Reinforcement learning and deep learning in control, Learning methods for control, Adaptive control of multi-agent systems, Markov decision process. 1. INTRODUCTION Consider a search mission in which multiple Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) survey a designated area with the goal of locating targets of interest and collecting associated data. The mission involves dynamic UAVs, static base stations, and entities that may interfere. After the search concludes and a base station or UAV obtains critical data, the scattered UAV swarm initiates a coordinated task to swiftly deliver the data to a base station at a known location. This return phase is the topic of the current work. The UAVs can communicate and control their motion. Moreover, the UAV swarm is sparse, meaning that the UAVs cannot generally form a static connected communication chain. Instead, they must physically move to relay and deliver data, similarly to a rugby team. In this work, a family of deterministic games is introduced that models the described problem and is suitable for scalability studies in Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learn- ing (MARL). The formulation captures key elements of the real problem while introducing simplifications, most notably the assumption of perfect information. A hand- crafted, well-performing, and robust baseline policy is in- troduced, and two MARL methods from the literature are trained and evaluated on scenarios involving up to nine UAVs. The latter are Multi-Agent Proximal Policy ‹ The first author thanks the Wallenberg AI, Autonomous Systems and Software Program (WASP) funded by the Knut and Alice Wal- lenberg Foundation. Fredrik B˚aberg, Anders Israelsson and Johan Markdahl at FOI are acknowledged for their great support and Axel Ringh and Ann-Brith Str¨omberg at Chalmers for careful reading. Optimization (MAPPO) (Yu et al., 2021) and Multi-Agent Deep Deterministic Policy Gradient (MADDPG) (Lowe et al., 2017). These algorithms have become popular in the literature as building blocks for MARL solutions, due to their good learning properties. Still, MARL is known for having scaling problems in the number of agents, see, e.g., Gronauer and Diepold (2022). After training, MAPPO remained competitive relative the baseline for up to seven agents and MADDPG up to five agents. Beyond these scales, both algorithms exhibited the expected degrada- tion in performance. Four scenarios were evaluated, corre- sponding to the combination of isotropic or directed data links with the presence or absence of a jammer. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, the problem of delivering one single data package with UAVs has not been previously reported in the literature. The use of UAVs to maintain resilient data links through relay network is, how- ever, well-studied in the literature; see (Bai et al., 2023). A vast part of the literature consists of civilian applications such as assisting systems of internet of things devices, cellular networks, and mobile edge computing. Zhang et al. (2020) investigate communication via relay UAVs under presence of eavesdroppers. The proposed solution is to deploy jammer UAVs that transmit interference toward the eavesdroppers, thereby preventing interception. The UAV policies are trained using MADDPG and an extended variant, Continuous Action Attention MADDPG. The pa- per demonstrates successful training of one transmitting UAV together with two jammer UAVs. Similarly, Bai et al. (2024), utilize relay UAVs to maintain a secure communi- cation while avoiding eavesdropping by a hostile agent. arXiv:2512.09682v1 [eess.SY] 10 Dec 2025 The UAVs control their transmission power and motion to operate covertly. The proposed Covert-MAPPO algorithm is successfully applied to a scenario with two relay UAVs. A related problem concerning mo

📸 Image Gallery

baseline_K3_row9_all_scenarios.png baseline_vs_MAPPO_K7_r640_r1100_r1260.png budget_evaluation_fit_poly.png communication_range_comparison_all_cases.png comparison_heatmaps_MADDPG_vs_baseline_K1_3_5_7_9_dir0_jam0.png trajectory_comparison_baseline_vs_mappo_vs_maddpg_K7_rows80_180_dir0_jam0.png values_K2_10_20_values.png

Reference

This content is AI-processed based on open access ArXiv data.

Start searching

Enter keywords to search articles

↑↓
ESC
⌘K Shortcut