Using Lanchester Attrition Laws for Combat Prediction in StarCraft
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Smart decision making at the tactical level is important for Artificial Intelligence (AI) agents to perform well in the domain of real-time strategy (RTS) games. Winning battles is crucial in RTS games, and while humans can decide when and how to attack based on their experience, it is challenging for AI agents to estimate combat outcomes accurately.A few existing models address this problem in the game of StarCraft but present many restrictions, such as not modeling injured units, supporting only a small number of unit types, or being able to predict the winner of a fight but not the remaining army. Prediction using simulations is a popular method, but generally slow and requires extensive coding to model the game engine accurately.This paper introduces a model based on Lanchester's attrition laws which addresses the mentioned limitations while being faster than running simulations. Unit strength values are learned using maximum likelihood estimation from past recorded battles. We present experiments that use a StarCraft simulator for generating battles for both training and testing, and show that the model is capable of making accurate predictions. Furthermore, we implemented our method in a StarCraft bot that uses either this or traditional simulations to decide when to attack or to retreat. We present tournament results (against top bots from 2014 AIIDE competition) comparing the performances of the two versions, and show increased winning percentages for our method.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it