analiza aiqbench
This research clarifies that in poker autoregressive models, most opponent-range information is captured by visible betting composition rather than residual hidden states within the model's latent space. The findings caution against interpreting positive belief probes as definitive evidence of posterior tracking without accounting for these compositional shortcuts. Consequently, future interpretability efforts must distinguish between genuine internal state representations and predictive support derived from observable game history summaries.
Beyond Tracking or Shortcut: Composition-Bounded Predictive States in Poker Autoregressive Models
arXiv:2607.19369v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Hidden-state probes often recover latent labels in imperfect-information sequence models, but this alone does not establish that a model maintains a posterior belief distribution over hidden states. This paper studies this ambiguity in a no-range Limit Hold'em autoregressive model trained only on action and value targets, not on an opponent's hand or range. Opponent-range probes are positive after action/value controls in two of three seeds, and the behavior head predicts held-out actions about five percentage points above a baseline using only observable public history. However, visible public betting composition explains more opponent-range signal than residual hidden states, suggesting that most recoverable information comes from betting summaries. Action/value+composition baselines reach 16.5-16.7% top-10 accuracy while composition-residual hidden probes fall to 11.4-12.2%, and matched-composition comparisons are negative in every seed. We call this evidence pattern composition-bounded predictive support: hidden states remain behavior-predictive and opponent-range correlated, but most recoverable range information is explained by visible betting composition rather than residual hidden-state structure. This is a case-study claim about opponent-range representational evidence, not exact Bayesian posterior tracking or a causal belief mechanism. Synthetic control and oracle validations show that the same diagnostics accept posterior-sensitive states and reject raw composition states under matched controls. Thus positive belief probes should be interpreted through targeted alternatives before being treated as evidence of belief tracking.
Abstract:Hidden-state probes often recover latent labels in imperfect-information sequence models, but this alone does not establish that a model maintains a posterior belief distribution over hidden states. This paper studies this ambiguity in a no-range Limit Hold'em autoregressive model trained only on action and value targets, not on an opponent's hand or range. Opponent-range probes are positive after action/value controls in two of three seeds, and the behavior head predicts held-out actions about five percentage points above a baseline using only observable public history. However, visible public betting composition explains more opponent-range signal than residual hidden states, suggesting that most recoverable information comes from betting summaries. Action/value+composition baselines reach 16.5-16.7% top-10 accuracy while composition-residual hidden probes fall to 11.4-12.2%, and matched-composition comparisons are negative in every seed. We call this evidence pattern composition-bounded predictive support: hidden states remain behavior-predictive and opponent-range correlated, but most recoverable range information is explained by visible betting composition rather than residual hidden-state structure. This is a case-study claim about opponent-range representational evidence, not exact Bayesian posterior tracking or a causal belief mechanism. Synthetic control and oracle validations show that the same diagnostics accept posterior-sensitive states and reject raw composition states under matched controls. Thus positive belief probes should be interpreted through targeted alternatives before being treated as evidence of belief tracking.
Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
arXiv:2607.19369 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2607.19369v1 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2607.19369 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 310 cuvinte
