mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

AlphaBeta is not as good as you think: a simple class of synthetic games for a better analysis of deterministic game-solving algorithms

arXiv 2506.21996 ↗First posted 27 Jun 2025cs.AIcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Deterministic game-solving algorithms are conventionally analyzed in the light of their average-case complexity against a distribution of random game-trees, where leaf values are independently sampled from a fixed distribution. This simplified model enables uncluttered mathematical analysis, revealing two key properties: root value distributions asymptotically collapse to a single fixed value for finite-valued trees, and all reasonable algorithms achieve global optimality. However, these findings are artifacts of the model's design: its long criticized independence assumption strips games of structural complexity, producing trivial instances where no algorithm faces meaningful challenges. To address this limitation, we introduce a class of synthetic games generated by a probabilistic model that incrementally constructs game-trees using a fixed level-wise conditional distribution. By enforcing ancestor dependencies, a critical structural feature of real-world games, our framework generates problems with adjustable difficulty while retaining some form of analytical tractability. For several algorithms, including AlphaBeta and Scout, we derive recursive formulas characterizing their average-case complexities under this model. These allow us to rigorously compare algorithms on deep game-trees, where Monte-Carlo simulations are no longer feasible. While asymptotically, all algorithms seem to converge to identical branching factor (a result analogous to that of independence-based models), deep finite trees reveal stark differences: AlphaBeta incurs a significantly larger constant multiplicative factor compared to algorithms like Scout, leading to a substantial practical slowdown. Our framework sheds new light on classical game-solving algorithms, offering rigorous evidence and analytical tools to advance the understanding of these methods under a richer, more challenging, and yet tractable model.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 4 of its 26 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 27 Jun 2025.

Builds on

4 of 26 references.

References · 4

  1. 2014Bandit Algorithms for Tree Searchcited by 25
  2. 2020Minimax Strikes Backcited by 11
  3. 2024Super-Exponential Regret for UCT, AlphaGo and Variantscited by 2
  4. 2014A New Paradigm for Minimax Searchcited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.