MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2794254934 · doi:10.1109/tciaig.2017.2717902

Game Tree Search Based on Nondeterministic Action Scripts in Real-Time Strategy Games

2017· article· en· W2794254934 on OpenAlexaff
Nicolas A. Barriga, Marius Stănescu, Michael Buro

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Games · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Games
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIterative deepening depth-first searchComputer scienceNondeterministic algorithmScripting languageTree (set theory)Search algorithmAction (physics)Beam searchAdversarial systemRepresentation (politics)State (computer science)Search treeArtificial intelligenceIncremental heuristic searchMachine learningTheoretical computer scienceAlgorithmMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Significant progress has been made in recent years toward stronger real-time strategy (RTS) game playing agents. Some of the latest approaches have focused on enhancing standard game tree search techniques with a smart sampling of the search space, or on directly reducing this search space. However, experiments have thus far only been performed using small scenarios. We provide experimental results on the performance of these agents on increasingly larger scenarios. Our main contribution is Puppet Search, a new adversarial search framework that reduces the search space by using scripts that can expose choice points to a look-ahead search procedure. Selecting a combination of a script and decisions for its choice points represents an abstract move to be applied next. Such moves can be directly executed in the actual game, or in an abstract representation of the game state, which can be used by an adversarial tree search algorithm. We tested Puppet Search in μRTS, an abstract RTS game popular within the research community, allowing us to directly compare our algorithm against state-of-the-art agents published in the last few years. We show a similar performance to other scripted and search based agents on smaller scenarios, while outperforming them on larger ones.

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)0.006
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.257 · 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

Citations38
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on GamesSame topicArtificial Intelligence in GamesFrench-language works237,207