MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2394792037 · doi:10.1609/aiide.v6i1.12410

On the Complexity of Two-Player Attrition Games Played on Graphs

2010· article· en· W2394792037 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

VenueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Digital Entertainment · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Games
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAttritionHeuristicsComputer scienceMathematical proofGraphCore (optical fiber)Variety (cybernetics)Time complexityGame theoryTheoretical computer scienceMathematical economicsMathematicsArtificial intelligenceAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The attrition game considered in this study is a graph based strategic game which is a movement-prohibited analogue of small-scale combat situations that arise frequently in popular real-time strategy video games. We present proofs that the attrition game, under a variety of assumptions, is a computationally hard problem in general. We also analyze the 1 vs. n unit case, for which we derive optimal target-orderings that can be computed in polynomial time and used as a core for heuristics for the general case. Finally, we present small problem instances that require randomizing moves — a fact that at first glance seems counter-intuitive.

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)0.000
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.558
Threshold uncertainty score0.892

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.223 · 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