- It would be helpful if the paper’s definition of “decentralized” is more explicitly stated in the paper, instead of in a footnote. Other ways of defining “decentralized” is where agents do not have access to the global state and actions of other agents during both training and execution which LIO seems to do. - Systematically studying the impact of the cost of incentivization on performance would have been a helpful analysis (e.g., for various values of \alpha, what are the reward incentives each agent receives, and what is the collective return?). It seems like roles between “winners” and “cooperators” emerge because the cost to reward the other agent becomes high for the cooperators. If this cost were lower, it seems like roles would be less distinguished, causing the collective return to be much lower. - In Figure 5d, more explanation as to why the Winner receives about the same incentive as the Cooperator to pull the lever would be helpful; it doesn’t match how the plot is described on lines 286-287.
- Systematically studying the impact of the cost of incentivization on performance would have been a helpful analysis (e.g., for various values of \alpha, what are the reward incentives each agent receives, and what is the collective return?). It seems like roles between “winners” and “cooperators” emerge because the cost to reward the other agent becomes high for the cooperators. If this cost were lower, it seems like roles would be less distinguished, causing the collective return to be much lower.