Hierarchical Adversarial Search Applied to Real-Time Strategy Games
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
Real-Time Strategy (RTS) video games have proven to be a very challenging application area for artificial intelligence research. Existing AI solutionsare limited by vast state and action spaces and real-time constraints. Most implementations efficiently tackle various tactical or strategic sub-problems, but there is no single algorithm fast enough to be successfully applied to big problem sets (such as a complete instance of the StarCraft RTS game). This paper presents a hierarchical adversarial search framework which more closely models the human way of thinking --- much like the chain of command employed by the military. Each level implements a different abstraction --- from deciding how to win the game at the top of the hierarchy to individual unit orders at the bottom. We apply a 3-layer version of our model to SparCraft ---a StarCraft combat simulator --- and show that it outperforms state of the art algorithms such as Alpha-Beta, UCT, and Portfolio Search in large combat scenarios featuring multiple bases and up to 72 mobile units per player under real-time constraints of 40 ms per search episode.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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