MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2946581269 · doi:10.1109/cig.2019.8848029

Policy Based Inference in Trick-Taking Card Games

2019· preprint· en· W2946581269 on OpenAlexafffund
Douglas Rebstock, Christopher Solinas, Michael Buro, Nathan Sturtevant

Bibliographic record

Venue2019 IEEE Conference on Games (CoG) · 2019
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Games
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsInferenceComputer scienceSequence (biology)Set (abstract data type)State (computer science)Action (physics)Artificial intelligenceFeature (linguistics)GermanApproximate inferenceTheoretical computer scienceMachine learningAlgorithmProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Trick-taking card games feature a large amount of private information that slowly gets revealed through a long sequence of actions. This makes the number of histories exponentially large in the action sequence length, as well as creating extremely large information sets. As a result, these games become too large to solve. To deal with these issues many algorithms employ inference, the estimation of the probability of states within an information set. In this paper, we demonstrate a Policy Based Inference (PI) algorithm that uses player modelling to infer the probability we are in a given state. We perform experiments in the German trick-taking card game Skat, in which we show that this method vastly improves the inference as compared to previous work, and increases the performance of the state-of-the-art Skat AI system Kermit when it is employed into its determinized search algorithm.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Open science, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.912
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0060.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.090
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.263 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue2019 IEEE Conference on Games (CoG)Same topicArtificial Intelligence in GamesFrench-language works237,207