Hierarchical Portfolio Search: Prismata's Robust AI Architecture for Games with Large Search Spaces
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Online strategy video games offer several unique challenges to the field of AI research. Due to their large state and action spaces, existing search algorithms have difficulties in making strategically strong decisions. Additionally, the nature of competitive on-line video games adds the requirement that game designers be able to tweak game properties regularly when strategic imbalances are found. This means that an AI system for a game like this needs to be robust to such changes and less reliant on expert knowledge. This paper makes two main contributions to advancing the state of the art for AI in modern strategy video games which have large state and action spaces. The first is a novel method for performing hierarchical search using a portfolio of algorithms to reduce the search space while maintaining strong action candidates. The second contribution is an overall AI architecture for strategy video games using this portfolio search method. The proposed methods are used as the AI system for Prismata, an online turn-based strategy game by Lunarch Studios. This system is evaluated using three experiments: on-line play vs.~human players, off-line AI tournaments to test the relative strengths of the AI bots, and a survey to determine user satisfaction of the system so far. Our result show that this system achieves a skill level in the top 25% of human players on the ranked ladder, can be modified quickly to create different difficulty settings, is robust to changes in game unit properties, and creates an overall AI experience which is user rated more enjoyable than those currently found in similar video 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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".