Modeling Individual Differences in Game Behavior Using HMM
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Player modeling is an important concept that has gained much attention in game research due to its utility in developing adaptive techniques to target better designs for engagement and retention. Previous work has explored modeling individual differences using machine learning algorithms performed on aggregated game actions. However, players’ individual differences may be better manifested through sequential patterns of the in-game player’s actions. While few works have explored sequential analysis of player data, none have explored the use of Hidden Markov Models (HMM) to model individual differences, which is the topic of this paper. In particular, we developed a modeling approach using data collected from players playing a Role-Playing Game (RPG). Our proposed approach is two fold: 1. We present a Hidden Markov Model (HMM) of player in-game behaviors to model individual differences, and 2. using the output of the HMM, we generate behavioral features used to classify real world players’ characteristics, including game expertise and the big five personality traits. Our results show predictive power for some of personality traits, such as game expertise and conscientiousness, but the most influential factor was game expertise.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".