MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1653490138 · doi:10.1109/cgames.2015.7272956

Machiavellian agents: Player modelling to deceive and be deceived

2015· article· en· W1653490138 on OpenAlexaff
Scott Watson, Andrew Vardy, Wolfgang Banzhaf, Todd Wareham

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Games
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeceptionComputer scienceSimple (philosophy)PopulationState (computer science)Finite-state machineGame theoryArtificial intelligenceEvolutionary game theoryHuman–computer interactionComputer securityMathematical economicsPsychologyAlgorithmSocial psychologyEpistemologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper explores several augmentations to the previously described Plantagenet model of computer game agents to give agents the deceptic capability to deceive the player and/or be deceived by the player. Augmented finite state machine controllers for agents in a simple role playing game are generated using an evolutionary algorithm. It is demonstrated that the proposed model is a practical option for generating populations of around 30 agents in which constraints on agent behaviour to ensure that actions are consistent with deception can be satisfied in substantial portions of the agent population.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.646
Threshold uncertainty score0.515

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.138
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.184 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicArtificial Intelligence in GamesFrench-language works237,207