MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1750339092 · doi:10.1609/aiide.v8i1.12527

Fast Heuristic Search for RTS Game Combat Scenarios

2012· article· en· W1750339092 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Digital Entertainment · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Games
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScripting languageComputer scienceAdversaryHeuristicIncremental heuristic searchState (computer science)SortingIterative deepening depth-first searchBeam searchSearch algorithmArtificial intelligenceComputer securityAlgorithmProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Heuristic search has been very successful in abstract game domains such as Chess and Go. In video games, however, adoption has been slow due to the fact that state and move spaces are much larger, real-time constraints are harsher, and constraints on computational resources are tighter. In this paper we present a fast search method — Alpha-Beta search for durative moves— that can defeat commonly used AI scripts in RTS game combat scenarios of up to 8 vs. 8 units running on a single core in under 5ms per search episode. This performance is achieved by using standard search enhancements such as transposition tables and iterative deepening, and novel usage of combat AI scripts for sorting moves and state evaluation via playouts. We also present evidence that commonly used combat scripts are highly exploitable — opening the door for a promising line of research on opponent combat modelling.

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.839
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.246 · 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