Learning Policies from Human Data for Skat
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Decision-making in large imperfect information games is difficult. Thanks to recent success in Poker, Counterfactual Regret Minimization (CFR) methods have been at the forefront of research in these games. However, most of the success in large games comes with the use of a forward model and powerful state abstractions. In trick-taking card games like Bridge or Skat, large information sets and an inability to advance the simulation without fully determinizing the state make forward search problematic. Furthermore, state abstractions can be especially difficult to construct because the precise holdings of each player directly impact move values. In this paper we explore learning model-free policies for Skat from human game data using deep neural networks (DNN). We produce a new state-of-the-art system for bidding and game declaration by introducing methods to a) directly vary the aggressiveness of the bidder and b) declare games based on expected value while mitigating issues with rarely observed state-action pairs. Although cardplay policies learned through imitation are slightly weaker than the current best search-based method, they run orders of magnitude faster. We also explore how these policies could be learned directly from experience in a reinforcement learning setting and discuss the value of incorporating human data for this task.
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 | 0.003 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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.
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".