MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W172163329 · doi:10.1609/aiide.v5i1.12362

Optimizing Motion-Constrained Pathfinding

2009· article· en· W172163329 on OpenAlexaff
Nathan Sturtevant

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Digital Entertainment · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Games
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPathfindingHeuristicsComputer scienceSmoothingMotion planningRule of thumbMathematical optimizationGridTruncation (statistics)Artificial intelligenceAlgorithmTheoretical computer scienceMathematicsComputer visionMachine learningShortest path problemRobot

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

High-quality motion planning can be quite expensive to perform, yet is critical for many video games. As a result, many approximations are employed to reduce costs. Common approximations include pathfinding on a grid or on a navigation mesh instead of in a real-valued world. As a result, the paths that are found are not immediately appropriate for use, and often require post-processing, such as smoothing. An alternate approach is to incorporate pathfinding constraints directly into A* search. This approach is expensive and so it hasn't been widely applied in games. In this paper we analyze the complexity of planning with complex motion constraints and suggest optimizations which make such planning feasible for use in modern games. We propose the use of two ideas, abstract perimeter heuristics and intermediate search truncation, which can reduce the cost of search by an order of magnitude or more.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations2
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Digital EntertainmentSame topicArtificial Intelligence in GamesFrench-language works237,207