ALGORITHMS FOR EVOLVING NO-LIMIT TEXAS HOLD'EM POKER PLAYING AGENTS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Computers have difficulty learning how to play Texas Hold’em Poker. The game contains a high degree of stochasticity, hidden information, and opponents that are deliberately trying to mis-represent their current state. Poker has a much larger game space than classic parlour games such as Chess and Backgammon. Evolutionary methods have been shown to find relatively good results in large state spaces, and neural networks have been shown to be able to find solutions to non-linear search problems. In this paper, we present several algorithms for teaching agents how to play No-Limit Texas Hold’em Poker using a hybrid method known as evolving neural networks. Furthermore, we adapt heuristics such as halls of fame and co-evolution to be able to handle populations of Poker agents, which can sometimes contain several hundred opponents, instead of a single opponent. Our agents were evaluated against several benchmark agents. Experimental results show the overall best performance was obtained by an agent evolved from a single population (i.e., with no co-evolution) using a large hall of fame. These results demonstrate the effectiveness of our algorithms in creating competitive No-Limit Texas Hold’em Poker agents. 1
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".