Generalized Sampling and Variance in Counterfactual Regret Minimization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In large extensive form games with imperfect information, Counterfactual Regret Minimization (CFR) is a popular, iterative algorithm for computing approximate Nash equilibria. While the base algorithm performs a full tree traversal on each iteration, Monte Carlo CFR (MCCFR) reduces the per iteration time cost by traversing just a sampled portion of the tree. On the other hand, MCCFR's sampled values introduce variance, and the effects of this variance were previously unknown. In this paper, we generalize MCCFR by considering any generic estimator of the sought values. We show that any choice of an estimator can be used to probabilistically minimize regret, provided the estimator is bounded and unbiased. In addition, we relate the variance of the estimator to the convergence rate of an algorithm that calculates regret directly from the estimator. We demonstrate the application of our analysis by defining a new bounded, unbiased estimator with empirically lower variance than MCCFR estimates. Finally, we use this estimator in a new sampling algorithm to compute approximate equilibria in Goofspiel, Bluff, and Texas hold'em poker. Under each of our selected sampling schemes, our new algorithm converges faster than MCCFR.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.088 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".