Automated Planning and Player Modeling for Interactive Storytelling
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Storytelling plays an important role in human life, from everyday communication to entertainment. Interactive storytelling (IS) offers its audience an opportunity to actively participate in the story being told, particularly in video games. Managing the narrative experience of the player is a complex process that involves choices, authorial goals and constraints of a given story setting (e.g., a fairy tale). Over the last several decades, a number of experience managers using artificial intelligence (AI) methods such as planning and constraint satisfaction have been developed. In this paper, we extend existing work and propose a new AI experience manager called player-specific automated storytelling (PAST), which uses automated planning to satisfy the story setting and authorial constraints in response to the player's actions. Out of the possible stories algorithmically generated by the planner in response, the one that is expected to suit the player's style best is selected. To do so, we employ automated player modeling. We evaluate PAST within a video-game domain with user studies and discuss the effects of combining planning and player modeling on the player's perception of agency.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it