Design and Implementation of a General Decision-Making Model in RoboCup Simulation
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
The study of the collaboration, coordination and negotiation among different agents in a multi-agent system (MAS) has always been the most challenging yet popular in the research of distributed artificial intelligence. In this paper, we will suggest for RoboCup simulation, a typical MAS, a general decision-making model, rather than define a different algorithm for each tactic (e.g. ball handling, pass, shoot and interception, etc.) in soccer games as most RoboCup simulation teams did. The general decision-making model is based on two critical factors in soccer games: the vertical distance to the goal line and the visual angle for the goalpost. We have used these two parameters to formalize the defensive and offensive decisions in RoboCup simulation and the results mentioned above had been applied in NOVAURO®, original name is UJDB, a RoboCup simulation team of Jiangsu University, whose decision-making model, compared with that of Tsinghua University, the world champion team in 2001, is a universal model and easier to be implemented.
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 | 0.001 | 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