Uncoupled no-regret dynamics provide a decentralized route to equilibrium, but prior guarantees for individual regret retain a polylogarithmic dependence on the horizon. We remove this dependence for every finite $N$-player normal-form game under full-information feedback. We introduce \emph{ECHO-OFTRL}: optimistic follow-the-regularized-leader (OFTRL) equipped with an EMA cascade for high-order optimism (ECHO), where EMA denotes exponential moving average. The algorithm is deterministic and fully uncoupled. If $m_{\max}$ denotes the largest action-set size, then, simultaneously for every horizon $T\geq1$, it guarantees that each of the $N$ players in the game incurs regret upper bounded by $O(\textrm{poly}(N, \log m_{\max}))$. Our algorithm leverages a new form of optimism inspired by modern filter design.
At a finite public-chance cut, counterfactual regret minimization (CFR) must choose how many outcomes to evaluate before each regret update. Exact evaluation processes the full cut at one strategy profile; persistent partial evaluation processes a fixed without-replacement order across evolving profiles. The latter covers every outcome once per epoch, yet its feedback is generally conditionally biased because earlier batches influence the profiles seen by later batches. We establish a deterministic target-transfer theorem for uniform, nonnested additive public cuts. The theorem bounds full-cut exploitability by regret on the delivered feedback and a public-debit term that couples prefix coverage discrepancy with motion along the realized strategy path. Consecutively balanced schedules consequently converge for additive signed regret matching (RM) and RM+ under predetermined averaging weights, while a fixed RM+ construction proves that the discrepancy--path product is necessary in general. A component-resolved form of the theorem converts an execution trace into a numerical exploitability certificate. On two released heads-up no-limit hold'em turn endgames, persistent order improves substantially over fresh reshuffling despite identical epochwise coverage, and partial coverage wins every registered shallow matched-budget comparison. A depth study locates a crossover between 32 and 64 full-cut outcome budgets, after which complete coverage dominates. These results characterize public-chance width and order as learning variables and provide a deterministic basis for designing and auditing persistent CFR schedules.
This note aims to serve as an entry point to the literature on learning in games, a topic with significant theoretical appeal and a wide range of applications -- from machine learning and data science to economics and beyond. Our presentation is structured around two complementary viewpoints: We first consider a single agent -- the learner -- engaged in a sequential decision process in an unknown, non-stationary, and possibly adversarial environment. We then examine what happens when the environment is shaped by the decisions of several interacting agents, not necessarily aware of each other's actions or goals, and all seeking to improve their individual rewards. In this general context, we examine a family of regularized learning policies based on best-responding to the past history of play, up to a regularization penalty intended to encourage exploration and prevent over-commitment to suboptimal choices. In the single-agent setting, we present some basic regret bounds for regularized learning in adversarial multi-armed bandits; in the multi-agent setting, we describe an ergodic equilibrium convergence result for zero-sum games in the spirit of classical results on fictitious play, as well as a "folk theorem" linking strategic and dynamic notions of stability -- Nash equilibria and attracting points of regularized learning, respectively. We pay special attention to the information available to the players and, through a unified analysis framework, we study both oracle- and payoff-based (bandit) methods. Our goal is to provide a coherent and comprehensible -- albeit, by necessity, not comprehensive -- account of some recent ideas in the field, and to discuss their implications for the study of rationality.
Conor M. Artman, Nicholas Di, Scott Perkinscs.LG cs.MA
While many algorithms blend reinforcement learning (RL) with counterfactual regret (CFR) methods to leverage tradeoffs in computational speed and performance, there are fewer investigations into generative sampling frameworks in game theoretic applications in incomplete information games. We extend a generative flow network framework, Adversarial Flow Networks (AFlowNets), to incomplete information games, called Information Flow Networks (IFNs). We prove that previously established constraints for generative flow networks in complete information games are inadmissible for obtaining valid densities (corresponding to player strategies) and a valid training objective. We show that our proposed generalization, IFlowNets, alleviates this issue and strictly generalizes AFlowNets. In preliminary results for three standard game environments, IFlowNets perform comparably to or better than Outcome Sampling Monte Carlo Counterfactual Regret (OSMCCFR) and standard RL-based methods in performance and speed.
Swap regret governs the rate at which uncoupled learning dynamics converge to correlated equilibria in multiplayer general-sum games. Under full-information feedback, the best previous guarantee when every player follows the same dynamics grows logarithmically in the horizon $T$. We construct uncoupled dynamics under which every player incurs only $O(nm^2\sqrt{\log m\log T})$ swap regret, where $n$ is the number of players and $m$ bounds the number of actions per player. To our knowledge, this is the first sublogarithmic individual guarantee in this setting, and it implies that the time-averaged product distribution of play is an $O(nm^2\sqrt{\log m\log T}/T)$-approximate correlated equilibrium. The key algorithmic choice is to combine the Blum--Mansour reduction with optimistic follow-the-regularized-leader using a hybrid regularizer that separately weights negative Shannon entropy and the log-barrier: the entropy controls the optimistic prediction error, whereas the log-barrier controls the transition-matrix movement through its Bregman divergence. A new sensitivity theorem for stationary distributions of Markov chains, which involves neither mixing parameters nor the smallest transition probability, transfers this control to the played strategies and yields a simpler analysis without local-norm or self-concordance arguments. The guarantee is preserved by an adversarially robust variant that additionally ensures $O(nm^2\sqrt{\log m\log T}+\sqrt{mT\log m})$ swap regret against arbitrary utility sequences, and by a horizon-free variant that requires no prior knowledge of $T$.
An agent playing a Nash-equilibrium strategy in a two-player zero-sum imperfect-information game secures the game value but forfeits the additional value offered by a flawed opponent. Diffuse deviations pose a particular challenge: binary release rules may gather too little evidence to act, while a full best response to an incomplete opponent model can be highly exploitable. We introduce \emph{budget-constrained confidence-scheduled restricted responses} (CS-RNR), the first opponent-exploitation method whose safety guarantee is a certificate the agent computes on the strategy it actually deploys, so that every exploit it commits to is one it has audited itself. The method tracks pooled action frequencies with anytime-valid confidence sequences and treats a frequency as exploitable only once its interval separates from an equilibrium reference. The confirmed deviations define a conservative opponent model, which a restricted-response solve turns into candidate counter-strategies over a grid of pin levels. Before deployment, each complete candidate is evaluated by a full-tree best response. The resulting certificate is compared with a user-specified budget and committed atomically with the strategy. Because this check is performed on the played strategy, model quality determines the exploitation achieved while the certificate controls reference-relative expected loss. In Leduc hold'em, CS-RNR obtains $6.2\times$ the steady-state gain of a money-verified binary gate while keeping every deployed strategy within budget. A trajectory mixture using the same estimator reaches $13.6\times$ the budget. Across Leduc, Liar's Dice, and 5-rank Leduc, all $36{,}000$ audited hands satisfy the reported certificate tolerance.
Keegan Harris, Brian W. Lee, Ian Waudby-Smith +3cs.LG cs.AI cs.GT
Reinforcement learning (RL) fine-tuning is widely used in language model training to improve model performance on a target task while limiting drift from a reference policy. A standard way to balance this trade-off is via a KL-regularized RL objective, although this formulation does not by itself provide a principled way to set the regularization coefficient. In practice, the coefficient is typically chosen heuristically or via hyperparameter search, which can lead to unnecessary overhead in training cost or undesirable reward-retention trade-offs. We instead propose a game-theoretic framework that gives this trade-off an explicit statistical interpretation. Specifically, we study a sequential game in which an agent chooses a policy to maximize cumulative reward while a monitor observes policy outputs over time and tests for deviations from the reference policy. Although not originating from the same perspective, we show that the resulting equilibrium policy can nonetheless be expressed as the solution to a KL-regularized RL problem for an optimal regularization parameter that can be viewed as maximizing reward per unit of statistical distinguishability. Drawing on classical results from concave-convex fractional programming, we provide a principled method for learning this equilibrium coefficient via reduction to the KL-regularized RL objective, thus allowing for flexible integration into standard fine-tuning pipelines. In experiments with Qwen3-8B and Llama-3.2-1B, we demonstrate that our methods result in competitive reward-retention trade-offs in a continual learning setting, and illustrate how our framework may be used to audit API providers serving open-source models.
In two-player zero-sum games whose Nash equilibria form a convex set, regularized solvers such as Regularized Nash Dynamics (R-NaD) empirically select the maximum-entropy member: the information projection (I-projection) of a uniform reference onto the Nash set. On a panel of small games this match is exact, with one apparent exception: in Kuhn poker R-NaD lands at bluff coordinate 0.180 while the maximum-entropy member sits at 0.201, a coordinate gap of about 0.021, even though R-NaD attains 99.7 percent of the maximum entropy. We ask whether this gap is a genuine selection bias or an artifact, and answer it quantitatively. We show that for selection on a one-dimensional Nash manifold the coordinate gap factorizes as $\mathrm{gap} \approx \sqrt{2δ/κ}$, where $δ$ is the entropy shortfall of the solver and $κ$ is the curvature of the entropy landscape at its peak. Across five games this relation holds to within $2 \times 10^{-4}$ (under 1 percent relative error). The four matrix games have $δ\approx 0$ (R-NaD reaches the maximum-entropy member exactly) and therefore no gap regardless of curvature; only the sequential game (Kuhn) has $δ> 0$. A causal sweep of the magnet strength drives $δ\to 0$ and the gap toward zero along the predicted curve (fitted scaling exponent 0.50, $R^2 > 0.999999$, against the exact prediction of 1/2), until the dynamics destabilize at a stability floor: behavior consistent with a removable shortfall and inconsistent with a fixed bias. We quantify the curvature half of the law from measured curvatures and flag a moving-target pitfall in the natural Tsallis-entropy experiment. The Kuhn gap is thus the curvature shadow of a small, removable entropy shortfall on an unusually flat peak; the I-projection account is upheld up to a flatness-limited residual.
Naman Aggarwal, Jonathan P. Howcs.GT cs.AI cs.LG cs.MA
Adversarial team games (ATGs) with asymmetric information, such as adversarial path-finding, goal search, and reachability games on graphs, require strategies that are robust to hidden opponent types, such as a hidden goal flag, and to deception. Under asymmetric information, deception is seen as strategic shifts in the type distribution such that the omniscient opponent can collude with Nature and condition its play on the observed type. Existing risk-neutral solution concepts, such as Bayesian Nash equilibrium (BNE), are sensitive to distribution shifts, while distributionally robust approaches provide guarantees only within a prescribed ambiguity set. To address these limitations, we introduce Probabilistically Robust Minimax-Regret Equilibrium (PR-MRE), a novel equilibrium concept that combines the distribution-free robustness of minimax-regret reasoning with probabilistic information from a nominal type distribution. PR-MRE minimizes worst-case regret over a high-confidence subset of the type space, providing protection against strategic redistribution of probability mass while avoiding the conservatism of fully distribution-free approaches. We show that, for normal-form Bayesian games, PR-MRE can be formulated as a robust bilinear program and derive a tractable semidefinite relaxation. We then adapt this relaxation into a novel meta-solver within a robust double-oracle framework, PRMRE-PSRO, enabling population-based learning of approximate PR-MRE strategies via deep reinforcement learning best responses. Experiments on graph-structured adversarial team games demonstrate that PR-MRE discovers strategies with substantially improved worst-case performance across hidden types compared to risk-neutral equilibrium solutions, resulting in more robust behavior under strategic distribution shifts.
Brent Kong, Tejas Ram, Tony Yue Yucs.LG cs.AI cs.GT math.CO
AlphaZero has demonstrated that a neural-guided Monte Carlo Tree Search can achieve superhuman performance, but strong play does not necessarily imply perfect play. We study this gap in two oracle-evaluable domains with contrasting structure: Connect Four, a solved partisan game with exact game-theoretic values, and Chomp, an impartial game whose optimal play is governed by Grundy-number structure. Under a unified self-play $+$ MCTS pipeline, we compare vanilla AlphaZero, a multi-frame variant (limited to Chomp), and an AlphaZero Auxiliary Loss (AZAL) that adds oracle-derived policy supervision. We find that vanilla AlphaZero achieves strong play across both domains but cannot preserve the exact trajectories required for optimal play: in Connect Four, it fails to maintain the optimal line of play, while in Chomp, it fails to consistently restore the $g=0$ invariant. On rectangular Chomp boards, multi-frame inputs alone do not remove this gap. Nevertheless, AZAL substantially improves oracle consistency across multi-seeded full-game traces and sampled-state evaluations. On Chomp, AZAL reaches perfect full-game oracle consistency on 10x11 and high but not complete consistency on 9x10; on Connect Four, AZAL improves oracle-match rate and delays the first oracle mistake, but does not reach perfect play.
Many important games have more than two players and imperfect information. Existing approaches for computing Nash equilibrium, the central game-theoretic solution concept, in such games either lack scalability or obtain poor performance. In this paper we introduce a new algorithm called projected exploitability descent (PED) for approximating Nash equilibria in multiplayer games of imperfect information. The algorithm works by running projected subgradient descent minimizing a proxy for the multiplayer generalized exploitability function. The objective is nonconvex and nonsmooth, but can be represented as the sum of the maxima of linear functions, for which a subgradient can easily be computed and projected to the polytope of feasible sequence-form strategies. We explore performance of PED on a generalized version of the well-studied benchmark game three-player Kuhn poker. No prior exact algorithms scale to the version of the game with deck size larger than 4, and we compare performance to the popular algorithms of fictitious play (FP) and counterfactual regret minimization (CFR). We find that PED obtains a consistent near-monotonic improvement throughout all runs, though both FP and CFR perform significantly better in the initial iterations. This inspires a hybrid algorithm FP-PED that runs FP for an initial burn-in period before switching to PED for stable long-run refinement. We can alternatively view this as a multi-step algorithm that runs FP as a pre-processing step to obtain a strong initialization for PED.
Many two-player zero-sum games admit not a unique Nash equilibrium but a convex set of them: a polytope of profiles that all share the minimax value V* yet prescribe different behaviour. Standard solvers each converge to some equilibrium and are treated as interchangeable. We ask whether they instead select different members of the Nash set, systematically as a function of the algorithm rather than the seed. Using a tabular, exactly solvable testbed of six games with analytically known Nash sets -- including a two-dimensional Nash polytope and Kuhn poker -- we find that (i) selection is determined by the algorithm, not the seed, but families differ only on asymmetric Nash sets; (ii) regularized last-iterate methods (R-NaD, magnetic mirror descent) select the maximum-entropy member, the information projection of their uniform reference onto the Nash set -- exactly on the 2-D polytope and at 99.7% of maximum entropy in Kuhn -- while regret-averaging methods (CFR, CFR+, fictitious play) drift to a lower-entropy face; we confirm this on a randomized 180-game ensemble, where R-NaD attains the maximum-entropy member in 100% of converged games while CFR+ sits strictly below it in 94% (paired Wilcoxon p < 10^-27); (iii) the selected member has downstream consequences against sub-optimal opponents that scale with sequential/hidden-information structure but stay bounded -- in Kuhn the max-entropy member is a strictly better hedge, whereas on the matrix games the members differ without either dominating. We also report two negative results correcting common intuitions: removing CFR's positive-orthant (max(R,0)) projection does not eliminate boundary drift; and R-NaD's selection is anchor-following, not initialization-independent. We state the maximum-entropy / I-projection characterization as a strongly data-supported conjecture, checked throughout against analytic ground truth.
Self-play with naive gradient ascent cycles in two-player zero-sum games: the last iterate orbits the equilibrium. Modern methods restore last-iterate convergence by regularizing toward a reference policy -- MMD a fixed one (reaching only the regularized equilibrium), R-NaD a periodic snapshot (the engine of DeepNash). We study GARIP, which anchors to the running average, and isolate what the choice of reference controls. Our central result is a mechanism: collapse tracks the peak lag of the reference, and among causal convex averages of a fixed mean lag the running average (flat profile, peak $=$ mean) uniquely minimizes that peak, while a snapshot's sawtooth has peak $= 2\times$ mean (a one-line theorem). Two consequences follow. Convergence: we prove local last-iterate convergence at constant anchor strength -- the anchor scales the base map's rotation by $1-β$, crossing the stability boundary and turning a recurrent base into a contraction (global convergence is conjectured at small $β$; we characterize a large-$β$ consensus failure). Robustness: GARIP matches R-NaD's peak performance -- on matrix games, the Coin Game, and the board games Connect Four/Othello, both moving references are far more robust than fixed-magnet and magnet-free baselines -- but is the better hyperparameter default; we report it both ways: over the full grid collapse rates are statistically indistinguishable, yet at conventional parameterizations a matched-mean-lag setting collapses in 0/40 vs 10/40 seeds (a snapshot matches it only by knowing to shorten $K$). The boundaries: an anticipatory (negative-weight) reference does better still on the stale side, and the advantage appears only where naive self-play cycles (five deep self-play loops). All experiments are pure JAX and reproducible.
In this paper, we study regret minimization in repeated games with \emph{adaptive} opponents who can respond based on histories of play. The standard metric of \emph{external regret} in online learning is known to fail to capture such adaptivity. To account for players' counterfactual reasoning, we introduce {\tt Repeated Policy Regret (RP-Regret)}, a game-theoretic metric that measures the difference between the \emph{realized} and the \emph{best-in-hindsight} accumulated utility when all players can \emph{respond} to the history of play. Compared to existing regret notions in this setting, ours is native to repeated game playing, enabling stronger comparators and opponents with fewer constraints, while maintaining the possibility of finding better equilibria when all players minimize it. We first identify necessary conditions for obtaining {\tt RP-Regret} sublinear in time, on the variation of the player's comparator strategies in the regret definition and on the memories of both the comparator and opponents' strategies. We then study additional conditions and provable algorithms to minimize {\tt RP-Regret}, which is by definition \emph{non-convex} in the strategy space. To address this challenge, we propose three algorithms: (i) one based on an optimization oracle, as assumed in some prior work in online non-convex learning; (ii) one that minimizes a convex and \emph{linearized} surrogate of {\tt RP-Regret} at each iteration; (iii) one that directly minimizes {\tt RP-Regret} when opponents change strategies slowly. Furthermore, when all players can run algorithms to minimize the {\tt RP-Regret} (or its linearized variant), certain subgame perfect equilibria of the repeated game can be learned. We also provide experiments showing that minimizing our regret notions can lead to more cooperative solutions with higher utility in games such as Stag-Hunt.
Mean-based algorithms are a class of online learning algorithms that assign low probability to actions with low average rewards. Recent work indicates these algorithms converge favorably to serially undominated actions, which approximate Nash equilibria in economic games. However, empirical studies also show slower convergence compared to established algorithms in bandit-feedback scenarios. We study mean-based algorithms when the time horizon is unknown and only bandit feedback is available. In this setting, we provide the first lower bound on the algorithm-defining sequence $γ_t$ that formally establishes a limit on how fast these algorithms can learn. Additionally, we propose two mean-based algorithms: one generalizes $ε$-greedy, and the other extends the mean-based Exp3 to unknown horizons. Our experiments show that mean-based algorithms, although slightly slower, can perform competitively with other bandit-feedback algorithms. We further analyze the relationship to no-regret algorithms. Depending on the choice of $γ_t$, the intersection with no-regret algorithms is non-trivial, and we show that algorithms exist that are both mean-based and no-regret. This adds context to the "exploitability" of this class of algorithms that previous contributions suggest.
Mehryar Mohri, Jon Schneider, Yutao Zhongcs.LG stat.ML
The Distributional Alignment Game framework provides a powerful variational perspective on Answer-Level Fine-Tuning (ALFT). However, standard algorithms for these games rely on estimating logarithmic rewards from small batches, introducing a systematic bias due to Jensen's inequality that can destabilize training. In this paper, we systematically resolve this structural estimation bias. First, we generalize the alignment game to arbitrary Bregman divergences, showing that for a family of geometries inducing polynomial rewards, we can construct provably exact and unbiased estimators using U-statistics. Second, for the canonical KL divergence game where an exact solution is impossible, we derive a globally robust minimax polynomial estimator that is provably optimal, achieving the fundamental statistical error limit of $Θ(1/K^2)$, which we establish via the Ditzian-Totik theorem. Finally, we synthesize these two approaches to propose a novel Variance-Optimal Augmented Polynomial Optimization Program (AQP) Estimator, proving that by systematically reducing variance, our method achieves not only optimal bias but also provably accelerated game convergence, leading to more efficient and stable training with zero online computational overhead.