MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2165739367 · doi:10.1109/cec.2004.1330971

Ayo, the Awari player, or how better representation trumps deeper search

2004· article· en· W2165739367 on OpenAlexaff
M. Daoud, Nawwaf Kharma, Ali Haidar, Jide Julius Popoola

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Games
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRepresentation (politics)Computer scienceMinimaxDomain (mathematical analysis)Artificial intelligenceFeature (linguistics)Function (biology)Theoretical computer scienceMathematical optimizationMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Awari is a two-player end-game played on a plank with 12 pits and 48 seeds; the goal of the game is to collect 25 seeds before the other player does. In this paper, we illustrate the importance of problem domain representation, using our own Awari playing program, Ayo. We use a genetic algorithm to optimize the weights of the feature evaluation function of Ayo. We play Ayo against a commercially available Awari player, then compare Ayo's results to those achieved by an older Awari player; one that uses a 7-level deep minimax search. Ayo, with a 5-level deep minimax search, returns better results, due to better, more intelligent, representation of the state space.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.805
Threshold uncertainty score0.682

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.087
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.250 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicArtificial Intelligence in GamesFrench-language works237,207