Alternative Function Approximation Parameterizations for Solving Games: An Analysis of ƒ-Regression Counterfactual Regret Minimization
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Function approximation is a powerful approach for structuring large decision problems that has facilitated great achievements in the areas of reinforcement learning and game playing. Regression counterfactual regret minimization (RCFR) is a simple algorithm for approximately solving imperfect information games with normalized rectified linear unit (ReLU) parameterized policies. In contrast, the more conventional softmax parameterization is standard in the field of reinforcement learning and yields a regret bound with a better dependence on the number of actions. We derive approximation error-aware regret bounds for (¶hi, ƒ)-regret matching, which applies to a general class of link functions and regret objectives. These bounds recover a tighter bound for RCFR and provide a theoretical justification for RCFR implementations with alternative policy parameterizations (ƒ-RCFR), including softmax. We provide exploitability bounds for ƒ-RCFR with the polynomial and exponential link functions in zero-sum imperfect information games and examine empirically how the link function interacts with the severity of the approximation. We find that the previously studied ReLU parameterization performs better when the approximation error is small while the softmax parameterization can perform better when the approximation error is large.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it