Researchers have shown that neural networks are vulnerable to adversarial examples and subtle environment changes. The resulting errors can look like blunders to humans, eroding trust in these agents. In prior games research, agent evaluation often focused on the in-practice game outcomes. Such evaluation typically fails to evaluate robustness to worst-case outcomes. Computer poker research has examined how to assess such worst-case performance. Unfortunately, exact computation is infeasible with larger domains, and existing approximations are poker-specific. We introduce ISMCTS-BR, a scalable search-based deep reinforcement learning algorithm for learning a best response to an agent, approximating worst-case performance. We demonstrate the technique in several games against a variety of agents, including several AlphaZero-based agents. Supplementary material is available at https://arxiv.org/abs/2004.09677.

From the early days of computing, games have been important testbeds for studying how well machines can do sophisticated decision making. In recent years, machine learning has made dramatic advances with artificial agents reaching superhuman performance in challenge domains like Go, Atari, and some variants of poker. As with their predecessors of chess, checkers, and backgammon, these game domains have driven research by providing sophisticated yet well-defined challenges for artificial intelligence practitioners. We continue this tradition by proposing the game of Hanabi as a new challenge domain with novel problems that arise from its combination of purely cooperative gameplay with two to five players and imperfect information. In particular, we argue that Hanabi elevates reasoning about the beliefs and intentions of other agents to the foreground. We believe developing novel techniques for such theory of mind reasoning will not only be crucial for success in Hanabi, but also in broader collaborative efforts, especially those with human partners. To facilitate future research, we introduce the open-source Hanabi Learning Environment, propose an experimental framework for the research community to evaluate algorithmic advances, and assess the performance of current state-of-the-art techniques.

Extensive-form games are a powerful model for representing interactions between agents. Nash equilibrium strategies are a common solution concept for extensive-form games and, in two-player zero-sum games, there are efficient algorithms for calculating such strategies. In large games, this computation may require too much memory and time to be tractable. A standard approach in such cases is to apply a lossy state-space abstraction technique to produce a smaller abstract game that can be tractably solved, while hoping that the resulting abstract game equilibrium is close to an equilibrium strategy in the unabstracted game. Recent work has shown that this assumption is unreliable, and an arbitrary Nash equilibrium in the abstract game is unlikely to be even near the least suboptimal strategy that can be represented in that space. In this work, we present for the first time an algorithm which efficiently finds optimal abstract strategies --- strategies with minimal exploitability in the unabstracted game. We use this technique to find the least exploitable strategy ever reported for two-player limit Texas hold'em.

Extensive games are often used to model the interactions of multiple agents within an environment. Much recent work has focused on increasing the size of an extensive game that can be feasibly solved. Despite these improvements, many interesting games are still too large for such techniques. A common approach for computing strategies in these large games is to first employ an abstraction technique to reduce the original game to an abstract game that is of a manageable size. This abstract game is then solved and the resulting strategy is used in the original game. Most top programs in recent AAAI Computer Poker Competitions use this approach. The trend in this competition has been that strategies found in larger abstract games tend to beat strategies found in smaller abstract games. These larger abstract games have more expressive strategy spaces and therefore contain better strategies. In this paper we present a new method for computing strategies in large games. This method allows us to compute more expressive strategies without increasing the size of abstract games that we are required to solve. We demonstrate the power of the approach experimentally in both small and large games, while also providing a theoretical justification for the resulting improvement.