MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2617552719 · doi:10.1609/aiide.v9i3.12591

An Exploration Tool for Predicting Stealthy Behaviour

2013· article· en· W2617552719 on OpenAlexafffund
Jonathan Tremblay, Pedro J. Rivera Torres, Nir Rikovitch, Clark Verbrugge

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Digital Entertainment · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Games
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAdversaryStructuringComputer scienceProbabilistic logicHuman–computer interactionPath (computing)Space (punctuation)Movement (music)Variation (astronomy)Virtual realityMotion (physics)Artificial intelligenceComputer securityAesthetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stealthy movement is an important part of many games in the First Person Shooter (FPS) and Role Playing Games (RPG) genres. Structuring a game level to match stealth goals, however, is difficult, and can depend on subtle and fragile interactions between the game space, enemy motion, and other factors. Here we apply a probabilistic path-finding approach to efficiently analyze a 2D space and find stealthy paths. This approach naturally accommodates variation in the level design, numbers and movements of enemies, fields of view, and player start and goal placement. Our design is integrated directly into the Unity 3D game development framework, allowing for interactive and highly dynamic exploration of how different virtual spaces and enemy configurations affect the potential for stealthly movement by players, or other NPCs.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations22
Published2013
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