MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2015291326 · doi:10.1145/1328202.1328219

While the ball in the digital soccer is rolling, where the non-player characters should go in a defensive situation?

2007· article· en· W2015291326 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHuman Motion and Animation
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceBall (mathematics)Scope (computer science)RoboticsHuman–computer interactionRobotSimulationMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The non-player characters (NPCs), i.e. the artificial characters that are not under direct control by the user, are essential part of many digital games. Achieving the realistic behavior by NPCs in digital sports games such as the simulated soccer is challenging. Here we limit our scope to the defensive situation, i.e. when the ball is controlled by the opponents, and propose a systematic method for optimal NPC positioning. So far the methods for automatically finding defensive positions by the intelligent robotic soccer players have been investigated by some scholars within RoboCup, an international research and educational initiative in Artificial Intelligence and robotics. Although simulated soccer teams using these methods have proved to be reasonably good, the collaboration issue in defensive situations has been overlooked. In this paper we propose a systematic approach based on solving a multi-criteria assignment problem. This allows gracefully balancing the costs and rewards involved in defensive positioning to achieve better results.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.690
Threshold uncertainty score0.582

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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHuman Motion and AnimationFrench-language works237,207