Using Active Probing by a Game Management AI to Faster Classify Players
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we present the use of a so-called Game Management AI to classify players not just by passively observing them, but by actively manipulating the game to get the players to provide data currently missing to achieve the classification. We call this "Active Probing". The Game Management AI uses two sets of rules, one set that contains rules that are intended to represent the knowledge allowing a classification and one set that contains rules that indicate which game events can contribute to triggering conditions used in the first rule set. When a rule of the first set comes near to being triggered, the event suggested by an appropriate rule in the second set is then offered to the player in the game. We instantiated this use of a Game Management AI to identify players with a very high interest level for the role playing game "Realm of Dreams", a game that we created for this purpose. Our experimental evaluation showed that using the active probing by the Game Management AI allows us to identify players in our targeted class in a quarter of the time that was needed to classify such players without active probing.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".