An AI based solution for the control of 3D real-time sensor based gaming
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Current approaches to game strategy make reference to the use of AI techniques in order the better predict the players' behavior. More recently the 3D sensor based gaming has spread rapidly in the PC and console gaming and gamers' communities. The sensor based gaming has changed dramatically the gaming design forcing it to move away from triggered scripts to more interactive reactions. This requires that games are designed such that they can adapt faster to the gamer reactions and behavior forcing the characters to react in an intelligent way by analyzing a variety of options and moves made by the user in the real space. The advent of 3D cameras and of the augmented virtual reality insertions into the game space via external sensors detecting users' moves and not buttons or keys pressed requires considering a new way of building a computer game. There is a stringent need to produce more and more intelligent engines to drive the game. In this paper we introduce and discus a series of aspects of game building when a 3D camera and movement sensors are used. The AI engine composition is discussed and shown that it has at its basis the opponent model which helps the engine learn from the data acquired. An evaluation function is also necessary. This evaluation function is built and tested on real data. The AI engine is also investigated in relation to a special language based on body or body parts movements.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".