MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2230033167

Adversarial hierarchical-task network planning for complex real-time games

2015· article· en· W2230033167 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Conference on Artificial Intelligence · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Games
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMonte Carlo tree searchComputer scienceAdversarial systemTask (project management)Tree (set theory)Theoretical computer scienceArtificial intelligenceCombinatorial game theoryPoint (geometry)Machine learningGame theorySequential gameMonte Carlo methodMathematicsMathematical economics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Real-time strategy (RTS) games are hard from an AI point of view because they have enormous state spaces, combinatorial branching factors, allow simultaneous and durative actions, and players have very little time to choose actions. For these reasons, standard game tree search methods such as alphabeta search or Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS) are not sufficient by themselves to handle these games. This paper presents an alternative approach called Adversarial Hierarchical Task Network (AHTN) planning that combines ideas from game tree search with HTN planning. We present the basic algorithm, relate it to existing adversarial hierarchical planning methods, and present new extensions for simultaneous and durative actions to handle RTS games. We also present empirical results for the µRTS game, comparing it to other state of the art search algorithms for RTS games.

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 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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.909
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 science0.0030.000
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 head0.220
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.165 · 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