Winning Is Not Everything: Enhancing Game Development With Intelligent Agents
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
Recently, there have been several high-profile achievements of agents learning to play games against humans and beat them. In this article, we study the problem of training intelligent agents in service of game development. Unlike the agents built to “beat the game,” our agents aim to produce human-like behavior to help with game evaluation and balancing. We discuss two fundamental metrics based on which we measure the human-likeness of agents, namely skill and style, which are multifaceted concepts with practical implications outlined in this article. We report four case studies in which the style and skill requirements inform the choice of algorithms and metrics used to train agents; ranging from A* search to state-of-the-art deep reinforcement learning (RL). Furthermore, we, show that the learning potential of state-of-the-art deep RL models does not seamlessly transfer from the benchmark environments to target ones without heavily tuning their hyperparameters, leading to linear scaling of the engineering efforts, and computational cost with the number of target domains.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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