MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2605637976 · doi:10.1609/aiide.v9i4.12635

Improving Goal Recognition in Interactive Narratives with Models of Narrative Discovery Events

2013· article· en· W2605637976 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Alok Baikadi, Jonathan Rowe, Bradford Mott, James C. Lester

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Digital Entertainment · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Games
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaWilliam and Flora Hewlett FoundationBill and Melinda Gates FoundationNational Science Foundation
KeywordsNarrativeComputer scienceHidden Markov modelRepresentation (politics)Artificial intelligenceData scienceMachine learningLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Computational models of goal recognition hold considerable promise for enhancing the capabilities of drama managers and director agents for interactive narratives. The problem of goal recognition, and its more general form plan recognition, has been the subject of extensive investigation in the AI community. However, there have been relatively few empirical investigations of goal recognition models in the intelligent narrative technologies community to date, and little is known about how computational models of interactive narrative can inform goal recognition. In this paper, we investigate a novel goal recognition model based on Markov Logic Networks (MLNs) that leverages narrative discovery events to enrich its representation of narrative state. An empirical evaluation shows that the enriched model outperforms a prior state-of-the-art MLN model in terms of accuracy, convergence rate, and the point of convergence.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.531
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.007
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations4
Published2013
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