MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2184201647 · doi:10.1609/aiide.v8i3.12548

Incorporating Search Algorithms into RTS Game Agents

2012· article· en· W2184201647 on OpenAlexaff
David G. Churchill, Michael Buro

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Digital Entertainment · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Games
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceDivide and conquer algorithmsTask (project management)HeuristicArtificial intelligenceArchitectureAutomationAlgorithmEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Real-time strategy (RTS) games are known to be one of the most complex gamegenres for humans to play, as well as one of the most difficult games forcomputer AI agents to play well. To tackle the task of applying AI to RTSgames, recent techniques have focused on a divide-and-conquer approach,splitting the game into strategic components, and developing separate systemsto solve each. This trend gives rise to a new problem: how to tie thesesystems together into a functional real-time strategy game playing agent. Inthis paper we discuss the architecture of UAlbertaBot, our entry into the 2011/2012 StarCraft AI competitions, and the techniques used to include heuristic search based AI systems for the intelligent automation of both build order planning and unit control for combat scenarios.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations27
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Digital EntertainmentSame topicArtificial Intelligence in GamesFrench-language works237,207