PapersWithELO
← ICLR 2024 leaderboard

Last-Iterate Convergence Properties of Regret-Matching Algorithms in Games

Yang Cai, Gabriele Farina, Julien Grand-Clément, Christian Kroer, Chung-Wei Lee, Haipeng Luo, Weiqiang Zheng

optimizationtwo-player zero-sum gameslast-iterate convergenceregret matchingno-regret learning
96.60100
Fused
band ≈ ±15 pct pts (from σ = 0.31)
97.50100
Mimo
band ≈ ±20 pct pts (from σ = 0.40)
94.40100
DeepSeek
band ≈ ±23 pct pts (from σ = 0.47)

OpenReview ground truth

Rejected

Abstract

Algorithms based on regret matching, specifically regret matching$^+$ (RM$^+$), and its variants are the most popular approaches for solving large-scale two-player zero-sum games in practice. Unlike algorithms such as optimistic gradient descent ascent, which have strong last-iterate and ergodic convergence properties for zero-sum games, virtually nothing is known about the last-iterate properties of regret-matching algorithms. Since last-iterate convergence is an attractive property both for numerical optimization reasons and because no-regret learning is viewed as a plausible method of real-world learning in games. In this paper, we study the last-iterate convergence properties of various popular variants of RM$^+$. First, we show numerically that several practical variants such as simultaneous RM$^+$, alternating RM$^+$, and simultaneous predictive RM$^+$, all lack last-iterate convergence guarantees even on a simple $3\times 3$ game. Then, we go on to show that recent variants of these algorithms based on a *smoothing* technique do enjoy last-iterate convergence: we prove that *extragradient RM$^{+}$* and *smooth PRM$^+$* enjoy asymptotic last-iterate convergence (without a rate) and $1/\sqrt{t}$ best-iterate convergence. Finally, we introduce restarted variants of these algorithms, and show that in both cases they enjoy linear-rate last-iterate convergence.

Author context

Most prolific author: 5 submissions (credibility 1.00).

No mass-submission penalty for this paper (authors within normal submission volume).

Aggregate statistics only — no individual author rankings.

Ranking trajectory

Percentile by tournament round — convergence indicates rating stability.

Judge assessments

Mean overall score 0.0 ± 0.0 (n = 38)