Biologically-Inspired Gameplay: Movement Algorithms for Artificially Intelligent (AI) Non-Player Characters (NPC)
Classification
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".
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
In computer games, designers frequently leverage biologicallyinspired movement algorithms such as flocking, particle swarm optimization, and firefly algorithms to give players the perception of intelligent behaviour of groups of enemy non-player characters (NPCs). While extensive effort has been expended designing these algorithms, a comparison between biologically inspired algorithms and naive directional algorithms (travel towards the opponent) has yet to be completed. In this paper, we compare the biological algorithms listed above against a naive control algorithm to assess the effect that these algorithms have on various measures of player experience. The results reveal that the Swarming algorithm, followed closely by Flocking, provide the best gaming experience. However, players noted that the firefly algorithm was most salient. An understanding of the strengths of different behavioural algorithms for NPCs will contribute to the design of algorithms that depict more intelligent crowd behaviour in gaming and computer simulations.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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