Agents

When Does Opponent Modeling Pay Off? Spatial Inference Stabilises Reinforcement Learning under Partial Observability

arXiv:2610.18229v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Deep reinforcement learning agents in partially observable competitive games must act on beliefs about an unseen opponent's intent. We study a spatial

DGX agentpaper
agentsarxiv-cs-lg

arXiv:2610.18229v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Deep reinforcement learning agents in partially observable competitive games must act on beliefs about an unseen opponent's intent. We study a spatial opponent model: a transformer trained with hindsight-relabelled opponent goals that outputs a subgoal heatmap from the opponent's observed trajectory, fused early into a dueling double DQN. In symmetric constant-sum foraging games with partial observability, the module stabilises training. Plain TD(0) DQN suffers degenerate seeds in three of four one-step configurations, whereas the opponent-model agent never collapses and, wherever training succeeds, recovers the majority of the symmetric game value. Transfers zero-shot to a foraging opponent unseen by the learner, with a positive goal advantage over the baseline, and loses this edge exactly where an information argument predicts: against a full-information tracking adversary whose intent is the learner itself, and on resource-dense maps where both agents saturate. A blindfold ablation, zeroing the heatmap at deployment, decomposes the advantage into two mechanisms: training-time stabilisation, which dominates where the credit assignment is hard and survives blinding on the dense map, and deployment-time inference, whose reliance shrinks as fog thins on the sparse map. We conclude that opponent-goal inference is a stability-and-transfer mechanism whose value is governed by measurable boundary conditions: visibility (fog thickness), opponent intent, and resource density.

Source: arXiv cs.LG | 2026-10-14

Loading related sources…