Portfolio greedy search and simulation for large-scale combat in starcraft
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Real-time strategy video games have proven to be a very challenging area for applications of artificial intelligence research. With their vast state and action spaces and real-time constraints, existing AI solutions have been shown to be too slow, or only able to be applied to small problem sets, while human players still dominate RTS AI systems. This paper makes three contributions to advancing the state of AI for popular commercial RTS game combat, which can consist of battles of dozens of units. First, we present an efficient system for modelling abstract RTS combat called SparCraft, which can perform millions of unit actions per second and visualize them. We then present a modification of the UCT algorithm capable of performing search in games with simultaneous and durative actions. Finally, a novel greedy search algorithm called Portfolio Greedy Search is presented which uses hill climbing and accurate playout-based evaluations to efficiently search even the largest combat scenarios. We demonstrate that Portfolio Greedy Search outperforms state of the art Alpha-Beta and UCT search methods for large StarCraft combat scenarios of up to 50 vs. 50 units under real-time search constraints of 40 ms per search episode.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".