MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2018622637 · doi:10.1109/igic.2012.6329840

Achieving desirable gameplay objectives by niched evolution of game parameters

2012· article· en· W2018622637 on OpenAlexaff
Scott Watson, Andrew Vardy, Wolfgang Banzhaf

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Games
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceGame designValue (mathematics)Game mechanicsEvolutionary computationComputationHuman–computer interactionArtificial intelligenceMachine learningAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Setting parameters for video games is important and often difficult. Poor choices can lead to games being too easy or too difficult, too short or too long, too linear or too open-ended. In many cases there is no alternative to making value judgments on what these parameter values should be. This paper explores whether evolutionary computation can be successfully applied to finding values that facilitate desired gameplay objectives in a Tower Defense game. Initial experiments suggest that a two-tier evolutionary method can create strategies to successfully play such games and configurations of game parameters that facilitate gameplay objectives desired by the developer.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.605
Threshold uncertainty score0.470

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicArtificial Intelligence in GamesFrench-language works237,207