MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2186639280 · doi:10.1609/aiide.v10i1.12711

Generative Methods for Guard and Camera Placement in Stealth Games

2014· article· en· W2186639280 on OpenAlexafffund
QI-HAN XU, Jonathan Tremblay, Clark Verbrugge

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Digital Entertainment · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Games
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsGuard (computer science)Computer scienceAdversaryRepresentation (politics)ConstructiveArtificial intelligenceGenerative grammarContext (archaeology)DroneProcess (computing)Human–computer interactionComputer visionProgramming languageComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Enemy observers, such as cameras and guards, are common elements that provide challenge to many stealth and combat games. Defining the exact placement and movement of such entities, however, is a non-trivial process, requiring a designer balance level-difficulty, coverage, and representation of realistic behaviours. In this work we explore systems for procedurally generating both camera and guard placement in a stealth game context. For the former we use an approach based on weakening theoretical results for optimal camera placement, while for the latter we perform automatic roadmap construction, generating more specific patrol behaviours through a grammar-based technique. We evaluate both approaches with a non-trivial implementation in Unity3D, and apply quantitative metrics to demonstrate how different parametrizations can be used to control level difficulty without sacrificing believability.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.718
Threshold uncertainty score0.944

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.059
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations14
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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