AntReckoning: dead reckoning using interest modeling by pheromones
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract—In games, the goals and interests of players are key factors in their behavior. However, techniques used by networked games to cope with infrequent updates and message loss, such as dead reckoning, estimate a player’s movements based on previous observations only. The estimations are typically done using dynamics of motion, taking only inertia and external factors (e.g., gravity, wind) into account while completely ignoring the player’s goals (e.g., chasing other players or collecting objects). This paper proposes AntReckoning: a dead reckoning algo-rithm, inspired from ant colonies, which models the players’ interests to predict their movements. AntReckoning incorporates a player’s interest in specific locations, objects, and avatars in the equations of motion in the form of attraction forces. In practice, these points of interest generate pheromones, which fade and spread in the game world, and are a source of attraction. Our simulations using mobility traces from World of Warcraft and Quake III show that AntReckoning improves the accuracy by up to 30 % over traditional dead reckoning techniques. I.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".