Particle-Based Communication Among Game Agents
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
One approach to creating realistic game AI is to create autonomous agents that can perform effectively with no more knowledge than a human player would have in their place. In a multi-agent setting, it is also necessary to devise a means for communicating among agents in collaborative game scenarios (such as a group of controlled agents that are searching for the player), since agents no longer have access to global knowledge. We present a method for communication using particle filters in the setting of game state estimation. Particle filters are an efficient, nonparametric means of performing inference in complex environments. Their use in game AI is particularly compelling, as they provide an easy way to represent nonlinear, non-Gaussian inferences about the state space, while exhibiting computational thrift. We demonstrate that communication among a group of agents — using particle filters to reason about the state space — can be accomplished in a natural way by sharing particles among the agents' filters. We also show how a criterion for deciding when to communicate naturally falls out of this framework. We apply this model in the setting of coordinated target detection, and find that agents of heterogenous types and complexities can nevertheless coordinate effectively
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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