Choosing Well Your Opponents: How to Guide the Synthesis of Programmatic Strategies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper introduces Local Learner (2L), an algorithm for providing a set of reference strategies to guide the search for programmatic strategies in two-player zero-sum games. Previous learning algorithms, such as Iterated Best Response (IBR), Fictitious Play (FP), and Double-Oracle (DO), can be computationally expensive or miss important information for guiding search algorithms. 2L actively selects a set of reference strategies to improve the search signal. We empirically demonstrate the advantages of our approach while guiding a local search algorithm for synthesizing strategies in three games, including MicroRTS, a challenging real-time strategy game. Results show that 2L learns reference strategies that provide a stronger search signal than IBR, FP, and DO. We also simulate a tournament of MicroRTS, where a synthesizer using 2L outperformed the winners of the two latest MicroRTS competitions, which were programmatic strategies written by human programmers.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".